First of all, the prototype looks awesome, and the art style and animations look slick. Also, luv the Soul Thief MUX variant hahah, really appreciate the efforts put into it!
Personally, I enjoy PVP card & strategy games like Hearthstone and Clash Royale, and the prototype shown reminds me of such games. Although I’m not a GameFi expert, I feel web3 turn-based PVP games can have great potential if they come with decent gameplay, balanced power levels and sustainable in-game economics. In the web2 gaming landscape, there have been examples of multiplayer online turn-based PVP games running successfully for 20+ years and generating millions of revenue over their lifespan (Reference). I think such games that require ever-changing strategies (skills) and players’ time & money have the potential to be long-lasting when they pair with on-chain infrastructures and UX organically.
After reading the comments above and checking with @thechaingamer.eth directly, I understood the reason for posting this proposal as a standalone application instead of applying from existing for upcoming incentive programs is that the grant will be used to fund development directly instead of being used as incentives. This does open a can of worms surrounding the domain of “DAO-funded/invested projects,” and I think there might need to be a more detailed discussion on a scale for measuring potential returns for the funding spent (can involve various metrics like revenue, DAU, influence, culture, etc.)
Although there might be gaps to be filled, I find the proposal, the project and the initiatives exciting. But at the same time, I also hope there can be a broader discussion surrounding “DAO-funded/invested projects.”
Please note the above comments are my personal opinions and won’t represent other MUX contributors & delegates.
Your post inspired me to the idea that Arbitrum projects could become sponsors, rather than the DAO itself.
For example, the GMH project will have its own branded deck. Or a branded playing field, which will also have a different landscape from others. There can be a lot of ideas here, as well as attracted finances.
What do you think about it, @thechaingamer’s.eth ?
You’re absolutely right. This is exactly what @krst was also saying and I completely agree with this. We want to make Machinata feel like an integral part of the Arbitrum ecosystem and representative of the community! Very excited about all the possibilities here.
Appreciate the feedback. As I’ve said earlier, this is definitely something we might run into:
However, I think like @coinflip, @Soby, @karelvuong and others have mentioned - we need to start somewhere. IMHO, waiting for frameworks isn’t the most agile way to move forward and thus I’m excited about the potential of a parallel track like this one - Direct to DAO (DtD ) - at least in the short term!
I have voted against this proposal in the initial snapshot check. Nothing personal, i think this looks like a great project
I’m just not fully there yet on DAO funding of specific ventures. I think this would reduce the incentive for drafting a more comprehensive ecosystem support program, as teams would prefer applying directly for themselves rather than helping out with governance and creating these structures. And since the DAO doesnt have paid staff to create these programs, we have to rely on selfish interest of teams that would benefit to create them
We appreciate the vision and potential of “Into the Dungeons: Machinata” and believe it could significantly contribute to the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, after much consideration, @thedevanshmehta has raised a very good point:
It’s crucial to develop a clear and comprehensive framework that not only ensures all members have an equal chance to propose projects but also milestones and accountability measures.Hence, we will vote against funding proposals for now.
I already expressed the right way, imo, to look at this:
And, I still believe in this:
But the more I think about it, the more I think that forcing the hand of the DAO by moving forward on this vote, even with an approval, will be more beneficial than anything.
And I will vote for, despite the issue that I will highlight here:
Milestone: they are not well specified. Not because they are not well written, but saying “I will implement X” is just no enough. Implementing X could result in an MVP or in a system that can take you up to mars. How do you evaluate the success of a milestone? We need a specification by use cases, as in any software development project. Specification of the functions that will be included, an high level view of the implementation, and the outcome. Would dare to say that a use case diagram (for people who have done software engineering in their life) might be needed
Milestone evaluation: by saying “After the milestones above have been met and confirmed by the DAO” we are basically DAO sourcing the evaluation of milestones that, as stated above, are quite subjective, just because there is no specification. So, to me it could be reached, and another might have the opposite view. This is a more complex problem in the sense that delegating to a commission is a way to remove some friction but also introduces centralization. So, something to broadly discuss.
There is no timeline. We don’t want necessarily fixed or too strict timeline in development grant, but we still need a reference point.
(and this is gaming specific). I have played a lot of games in my previous life, used to review games and so on. It feels like we might have less people “knowlegeable” in gaming than in DeFi. But then again, i suspect that a lot of people talking this or that about DeFi have actually a limited understanding of DeFi in general, so is probably a non-issue.
After all of the above, people might think why voting for? Answer is simple: the game, as it is, looks quite good to me. The team is there and has shown the commitment to push it and to publicly participate to feedback discussion. And also, while there are a lot of gaps in the application, I think that moving it forwar will be a very very very good learning experience for the DAO. Worst case scenario, we will learn how to put down better specifications for development grant. Best case scenario, we will be able to create a Development Grant Program.
Thank you. I’m glad you think ITD looks promising.
Also, no offense taken at you voting against it. I will say, I personally think the argument is somewhat flawed and I’ll share my thoughts here for folks to consider.
The crux of your argument is that if something like my proposal passes, people will stop trying to create a framework (“more comprehensive ecosystem support program” is just a much longer way of saying it) for such projects, which are basically development projects. Why? Because people are selfish.
Here is why I disagree.
Saying we will not have any progress on frameworks because people will stop working on them if they see a direct proposal to the DAO getting approved doesn’t make sense to me. If a direct development proposal gets approved, it can actually be used as part of the argument of needing a specific framework to scale a “Developer Grant Program” and encourage more builders to build in Arbitrum.
The selfishness aspect is one that can exist in every single proposal, whether it is a proposal for frameworks or individual proposals. What needs to be evaluated is the following - are there aligned incentives? If the answer to that question is yes, that is what matters. Every team will want their project to succeed. The success of the project should be directly tied to the health and growth of the ecosystem, in this case, Arbitrum. As long as that is happening, there is no disconnect. That is the ultimate goal of the DAO.
In conclusion, this is not a zero-sum game. Direct project funding and the creation of frameworks are complementary forces that will propel the ecosystem forward. If we become so rigid that we refuse to ever look at things outside the context of frameworks, well, then we need to take a step back and rethink what we are doing. There is value in using direct DAO funding to experiment and learn what works, what does not. This is information that can be applied to improving frameworks.
Thank you for the comment, because I really believe this is an important discussion to have.
Thank you, JoJo! Your feedback is once again super useful and on point.
If the DAO does move forward with this here is how the team is thinking of addressing the points you’ve raised.
Milestones will have more details around how we can measure success. We want to do this in the easiest to follow way possible.
The purpose of doing 1. above is to make it easy and time efficient for the DAO to evaluate the milestone. I realize how this: “After the milestones above have been met and confirmed by the DAO ” can be viewed as “Your headache now!!! hahaha” and that is totally not what it is supposed to mean. We’ll make sure of that.
The timeline is a dependent on a couple of things (mentioned below). Once that is done, we will have a more accurate timeline. Needless to say, quicker progress = better in our view
a. How much progress we make till the proposal gets approved and funding comes through
b. How quickly we are able to get a couple of the contractors needed for part of the deliverables
We are all gamers and for folks who are not, it would wonderful if they take an interest and become more involved in the topic through something like this!
Thanks for your response! This is indeed an important conversation we need to be having, as we wouldn’t want to land up in a situation where we get a slew of individual projects for the DAO to fund and we do so based not on strategy or needs assessment but on lobbying abilities of teams.
This sounds correct in theory but has not borne out in practice. For example, would @AlexLumley have worked on the STIP backfund if Savvy was not one of those that benefited from its passage? Questionable.
Would we have had the ARDC if the original @BlockworksResearch proposal for an Arbitrum Coalition was passed? Probably not
In all these 3 cases, the DAO benefited from rejecting the funding request of an individual venture. Not to say that it’ll be the case here too, but the numbers are on our side so the burden is on you to prove otherwise.
The incentives for people to work on frameworks are almost non-existent. The only ones we have seen are either those referenced above where teams work on a framework to receive funding for their project from the DAO, or having Working Groups like ours specifically paid to create them
I’d be curious to know how you think the passage of this proposal will help in the creation of the much discussed gaming STIP, instead of just creating a race to the finish where every team is now working on their own separate proposal because they see you successfully get direct funding.
That situation (getting a slew of individual projects) doesn’t exist yet. It may never exist. We can also debate whether that would be a good or bad thing.
You’re giving three specific examples, and it seems based on how you phrased your response, (correct me if I am mistaken) that you believe individual requests to the DAO should not exist and instead everything should go through a framework. If that is the case, I do not think we’ll see eye to eye on this point, because I fundamentally disagree with that approach.
The passage of this proposal, IMO, will do nothing to distract from or slow down the proposal of the Gaming Catalyst Program. If it was just a STIP program, you can see how this, a development request wouldn’t even fall into that bucket. We would instead need to have another discussion a Developer Grant Framework (which we should totally have). I do not see this an either, or, nor has anyone “proven” how that is the case.
The way I think this proposal would benefit the DAO is by showing people, builders, on the outside, that we are serious about moving fast where we think there is potential. We are not rigid. We are willing to take risks and try stuff out, if we think there is potential for the DAO to benefit. And a bunch more.
Hello! I’m not really a fan of such games but from the DAO perspective I understand that it brings people into the ecosystem. I share the comments that @JoJo has posted here. I don’t have any reason to think bad but I would love a more detailed milestones and metrics to ensure that the project is going as expected. Also I would be more possitive towards this grant if there was an explanation of how the amounts were choosen and where the funds are going to be spent. Having timelines and lower amounts based on quarter progress could be better imo.
Also as I said I don’t have an idea of how hard is to develop on chain games but I can see how the ecosystem can benefict from it.
I will vote abstain for now and I can reconsider my vote probably leaning to a for
Edit: I have reconsidered my vote and the amounts proposed are too much for a game after making some research. Also considering the possible impact. I will vote against
Our team voted AGAINST this proposal.
Our comments were not taken into account, which was to get the work done at Arbitrum first.
It was important for our community, I think.
Also, the developer reported that he have no plans to build this out of ARB.
So we don’t see the benefit of voting to fund this game.
However, as I said earlier, I like the game and after taking into account our comments, we will be ready to support this project.
Thanks for taking the time to engage, I really appreciate it!
We have seen this happen at Optimism, as @Bobbay can attest. It resulted in their move towards grants councils as the transaction costs of delegates voting on each individual project became way to high.
Its not about a framework or not so much as trying to answer the question: is the DAO best equipped to make decisions over whether to fund Venture A or not?
As none of us really know much about the gaming scene, funding decisions boil down to lobbying abilities of individual teams. Whereas with voting on creation of an ecosystem support program, it becomes a needs assessment survey which we are well equipped to make decisions on.
This is beyond the scope of the proposal, but curious how you think we should go about creating this. Should the DAO hire someone to come up with a framework? Or should it be a voluntary pro bono effort from the teams in the ecosystem that would benefit from its passage?
Apologies for the messy response. Typing on my phone.
Ser, definitely agree. My point is not to say we just have 100s of individual proposals flood the forums. Definitely need a framework. To be selfish let me say why I think my proposal stands out.
Been an active builder in treasure/arb since 2021.
Built and released ruffion reborn (smart contracts underway), all self funded, we raised like 5 eth in a public mint. All code is opensource and available on github. You can see the site here https://www.ruffionreborn.xyz and try the alpha here: https://alpha.ruffionreborn.xyz
Building on arb without asking for funding. Have been self funding itd as well.
Feel free to check with anyone familiar with game dev, this game isnt cheap to make and the quality is very high
Doxxed
Building multiple things on arb actively
Evangelizing
Brought bitmates to treasure, and made several other intros between indie devs and treasure
Etc. Etc.
Point is, when you look at a proposal like this, what is the risk? 60k arb. Whats the payoff? We hit it big and make a mark for arb.
The reason im trying to rush this is purely because self funding wont allow us to move as fast as we want to.
I say all this to say, not all proposals will be the same, and on the face of it, to me, this proposal seems like a low risk for the DAO. It is not worth it to me to ruin my rep for 60k ARB.
In parallel, lets start working on a developer grant framework - for apps, not just games.
See my answer above. Tell me what you think.
Lets start talking! Lets draft something. Happy to take the lead here. Honestly, i would be able to dedicate more time to it if im not worrying about looking for funding for ITD. Regardless, let us get started on drafting something.
I am happy to note i have changed to a “for vote” in light of these amendments. I did not know that @thechaingamer.eth was already working on a framework in the background and this current proposal will provide him with the empirical data to create a good developer support program, of which the DAO currently has none (except Questbook, but we still need something more direct and larger like STIP).
@Curia in light of these considerations it might be worth revisiting !
At a larger level, framework proposals have so far been created either by projects whose proposals were rejected or bureaucrats paid to create them. The current proposal has an exciting new third direction, where teams like Machinata that receive funding directly from the DAO recognise the deficiencies of the existing process and suggest changes to how it can be made better at the end of the grant period.
I will remember and hold you to your commitment of creating a better process, so other projects like yours don’t have to go through what you are undergoing right now!
As mentioned in the other comments, this would be better to flow through other grant programs if their funding wasn’t already allocated. I appreciate Flooks comment and sign of support here.
I am curious about the following:
How these evaluations of milestone 1,2 & 3 will play out. I know my evaluation would be limited here due to my limited experience with these types of games and I wonder whether a lot of other delegates or stakeholders might have a similar experience. This is more me thinking out loud here.
Why 180k arb? I’m not familiar with the costs of creating a game like this, so I’m curious to understand the total ask.
I do like the idea of the game embracing the arb culture and embedding that within the game and leveraging other protocols like Savvy to enhance the experience. Saying that, I will take some more time before I vote.
Hey team,
thank you for putting this out, the game looks indeed very promising.
I think we should find the best way to support it, I am unsure if this proposal is the best approach for that.
Premise: I don’t have much experience in funding games, so I am trying to apply a general mental model of “pre-product funding phase”. Please bear with me if I am missing the right perspective here.
Also, appreciate that as a builder you want to “get some funding quickly to go back to building”: I support this mentality so hopefully this doesn’t come off as a bureaucratic exercise.
But, as a builder, I also know that sometimes we are obsessed with polishing a perfect product before testing the market, and that’s my perception of what is being asked here.
I have read through everyone’s comments and I share the sentiment of other delegates which can be summarized in:
The team is seeking a total of $350.000 to keep building the game + marketing activities
The milestones are not structured as I would expect them:
Lacking a timeline
Current focus is on the development output rather than user metrics. IMO every milestone should answer the question: are people loving this game? Is it worth it to keep funding it?
In order to do so, the first milestone should be focused on bringing the MVP live:
What is the minimum required to make the game publicly playable even if with minimum items? When is the first tranche enough to bring the game to life?
Future milestones should be focused on metrics like players attracted, retained, user evaluation.
The milestones as presented now make it look like we are funding another NFT marketplace and some digital art.
This is not how I would fund a gaming project.
I am ok with not waiting for a proper gaming framework for DAO grants, but then we should create accountability based on gaming metrics, not “output metrics” (x new cards).
) - at least in the short term!