The Game Developers Conference (GDC) 2025 saw a significant presence from Arbitrum, which deserves commendation for its impactful contribution.

We acknowledge that the concerns stem from the lack of measurable results despite the significant ARB funding allocated to this initiative. However, it is important to recognize that venture and early-stage investing are inherently challenging and often require substantial time to yield meaningful outcomes.

While Treasure DAO has been a key early supporter of the GCP, it should not define the entire Web3 gaming landscape on Arbitrum.

To ensure accountability while allowing the initiative to succeed, we propose that GCP establish clear milestones and implement a phased clawback mechanism if these milestones are not met. This approach would maintain oversight without prematurely winding down the initiative. Ultimately, we hope to allow GCP the necessary time to deliver results that align with the long-term nature of venture investments.

The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.

The Game Developers Conference (GDC) 2025 saw a significant presence from Arbitrum, which deserves commendation for its impactful contribution.

We acknowledge that the concerns stem from the lack of measurable results despite the significant ARB funding allocated to this initiative. However, it is important to recognize that venture and early-stage investing are inherently challenging and often require substantial time to yield meaningful outcomes.

While Treasure DAO has been a key early supporter of the GCP, it should not define the entire Web3 gaming landscape on Arbitrum.

To ensure accountability while allowing the initiative to succeed, we propose that GCP establish clear milestones and implement a phased clawback mechanism if these milestones are not met. This approach would maintain oversight without prematurely winding down the initiative. Ultimately, we hope to allow GCP the necessary time to deliver results that align with the long-term nature of venture investments.

The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.

So, if I understand the latest posts correctly, the plan is to retain the status quo while ensuring transparency and disclosures via more....reports?

As a gamer and game dev, I tend not to lean towards any chain or any game, but instead looking at the long-term overarching picture of gaming as a whole because gamers have always gravitated towards games and communities that hold their interest. Web3 gaming is no different from any other gaming sector, except for the fact that thus far it has failed - miserably - to attract core gamers. Instead we have Web3 gaming dominated by gamblers and speculators who are more focused on making money than they are in engagement. The mistakes there have already been made and there's no going back. But what if we had the chance to change that - for the better?

IMX, AVAX, Treasure, XAI et al - across all chains - are all siting on catalogs of underperforming games. We refer to that as the "Steam Enigma". And collectively, millions have been thrown at breaking the cycle of Web3 transient gaming engagement. That has thus far failed to yield tangible results because Web3 gaming engagement is transient by nature. When you flood an ecosystem with a lot of games, UA aside, the end result is that breaking out presents an insurmountable challenge for teams - regardless of funding, experience or clout.

Anyone paying attention - and who understands the metrics - already realizes that the era of token funded games is at an end. That's just not going to work as it once did - unless of course the teams are more focused on token-funded raises so they can get an early exit while abandoning the games when the music stops and the speculators have all moved on post-TGE.

Djinn, Karel et al came up with the idea for the GCP at a different time in the gaming cycle. A year ago, sentiments were high, the outlook seemed great - and Web3 gaming was supposed to be taking off. Then it didn't. Most of us who actually do this for a living - right here on this forum - said that gaming has its swings and misses and that the risks were high. And so, the GCP needed to ensure that it was positioned to take steps in mitigating those risks and that throwing money at gaming was never - ever - a guarantee of success.

Every single day there are well-funded gaming teams either closing, being sold or downsizing their teams. That's not a fluke, it's a sign of the times ahead.

All that is to say, I still maintain that the GCP has to make the hiring of people with actual gaming and game dev experience a top priority. And they need to be in the intake team so that even before it gets to the council there is a good chance that the team and project have been thoroughly researched, vetted and the due diligence solid. Which is what I had originally assumed was being done. Turning it into a VC model isn't going to yield the expects results because lets face it, how is that different from what came before - and has subsequently failed?

Build a better mouse trap.

Currently, as per the current transparency report, we have this structure. Image courtesy of the GCP - Strategic Update (March 2025)

According to that chart, from what I can tell, the GCP is still missing about 6 positions. And nowhere in there is the mention of any position that is "gaming" related. So, where are the gaming people? The people with actual gaming and game dev experience? The people who, when speaking with a gamedev team, understand precisely what is being conveyed, relayed and planned about a project? Every single successful games publisher, licensing distributor or funding team, either has such a person on staff or bring them in at some point - even if they are external. If such people are defined as being a part of pre-existing roles (e.g. Content Lead) in that chart, then that brings me to this...

Another point to consider. While the Project Review process as outlined in the transparency report is solid enough, Screen One and Two are the ultimate points of failure. And so, that's where the focus needs to be in terms of a proper and all-encompassing due diligence into a project's chances of success. Yes, while 90% of game projects will ultimately fail to yield the expected results, "failure" is relative to the investment made. Meaning, is the GCP looking for a 2x, a 10x or a break-even?

The GCP grant from the Mar 2024 startup was a 200M $ARB ask.

On Mar 15, 2024 $ARB was trading at around $2.00. Today, it is at $0.33. That's an 84% drop. And so, as of this writing, the 200M ARB grant to the GCP fund is $66M.

This means that the value and number of inaugural GCP projects are ultimately affected - especially when you take into account the costs of running the GCP project.

To wit: Off The Grid, a standard-fare AAA game with Web3 elements, raised $82M. It's still in early dev, and the token TGE is today. Before that, we had Shrapnel.

That the GCP says they have already signed 66 projects makes it all the more important for the interested/vested parties to get insight into what those projects are, what they cost, the expectations, the ROI tracking etc. Given the above post by the ARB Foundation, they're obviously aware of these projects, have confidence in them etc. All said and done, I see that as a good sign.

However, I still have concerns about the viability of the GCP actually signing 66 projects within a span of 12 months even though it clearly wasn't staffed to any meaningful degree during that period. That's not normal and is completely outside the norm. Was it rushed? Were corners cut? Were projects signed because of the pedigree of the team sans normal DD etc?

Lastly, it is my understanding that the GCP lacks the infra and team to lead a funding round. So, what is the play here? Do teams have to then first get a funding lead before engaging with the GCP investment team?

In conclusion, I still believe that the GCP should be setup as a third-party game distribution studio structure, staffed with experienced gamers/gamedevs because this Web3 version of a VC inspired fund is the very same playbook that has seen very little success in Web3 gaming.

To be clear, I still support the idea of the GCP because its success means that Web3 gaming will have a chance to prosper in some way. While most of us have since moved on for one reason or another, the fact remains that any Web3 gaming win is a win for all of us who are vested in the sector. And most of us aren't transient in gaming. We've been here since the beginning.

This proposal represents the nuclear option to claw back funds from a DAO-approved program and we are thankful that all community members, contributors and delegates, took the proposal seriously from the onset. It appears there is a resolution in sight that will result in the proposal not going forward for a vote, but there are still a few lessons that we as a community should take from this experience.

1. Less twitter, more discourse. It is our understanding that the proposal’s origin comes from this twitter post. We should be mindful that most interaction in our DAO occurs on this forum, on telegram and on governance calls. If a delegate, or contributor, is having an issue with a DAO-approved program, then we should keep the discourse amongst ourselves and attempt to find the best possible resolution before publishing nuclear-like proposals.

2. Constructive feedback. There are many people lurking the forum and telegram chats who will read comments at face value. They do not understand the nuances of comments and will quickly skim the discussion to figure out what is happening. This can result in miscommunication if comments are distracting in any way. We should hold everyone to exceptionally high standards to ensure communication is constructive, maximally polite, and focused on the matter at hand. This will help us to continue attracting the best contributors to our DAO.

3. Unnecessary media attention. All eyes are on the ArbitrumDAO. This thread has had >1k views over the past 4 days. When a proposal is published to the forum, it can, and will, be picked up by the media. Within a few hours, several outlets including TheBlock, Leviathan News and Cointelegraph published a story. The problem is that outlets often have misleading titles which are misinterpreted by readers. As a result, in this case, many external people were under the impression that the GCP funds were guaranteed to be clawed back and the program would end, which is not true.

4. Harming GCP’s efforts. Unfortunately, the media attention has led to practical operational issues for the GCP. It has interfered with ongoing and potentially future investments as projects (and co-investors) are now unsure whether the GCP is at risk. It has also harmed on-going recruitment efforts as quality candidates are now more reluctant to leave their current jobs for the GCP as headlines indicate that the DAO will dissolve it. It will take time for the team and program to recover which is unfortunate given the positive outcome from GDC last week.

5. Faith in GCP Council. The ArbitrumDAO elected 5 members to serve on the oversight committee of the GCP. They are tasked with approving budgets, hiring plans, treasury management, evaluating deals, providing strategic direction to the GCP program, and overseeing performance reviews. This is all accounted for in the GCP’s bylaws. Everyone should allow the GCP council to perform their job and use them to get your questions answered.

6. Transparency. All DAO-approved programs should seek to be transparent, whenever possible, with the community. If there is a delay for an anticipated disclosure, then the team should clearly communicate it with an updated timeline. We recommend all programs to appoint a dedicated individual (or team) focused on DAO relations that can support disclosures alongside help manage relationships with the DAO. In this case, there was already an on-going negotiation with CastleCap to support the GCP program prior to this proposal becoming public, but unfortunately it was not completed on time.

We (the Arbitrum Foundation) have been heavily involved with the GCP Council and the GCP Team to help it become operational. It is now in a good position to start carrying out their mandate as an essential function of the wider Arbitrum Gaming front and we believe they should be allowed to do so. Let’s support the team alongside all other DAO-approved programs to ensure that Arbitrum continues to win.

Honestly, reading through this, it feels like we're all looking at a project that just... didn't take off like we hoped. You know, those big, ambitious plans that sounded amazing at the time? Yeah, that. And now, we're left with this situation where we're basically saying, "Okay, let's cut our losses and move on."

And honestly? I get it. We've all been there. You put your faith in something, maybe throw some resources at it, and then it just fizzles. And what I appreciate about this proposal is it's not about pointing fingers. It's about being responsible.

We're talking about our DAO's money here, right? Money that's supposed to build something awesome for all of us. And when things aren't working out, we gotta be grown-ups and say, "Alright, let's reel it in."

I mean, the whole "transparency" thing? That's huge. We're a community, not some shadowy backroom deal. We need to know what's going on, where the money's going, and what we're getting for it. And when a project isn't giving us that, yeah, we gotta step in.

And I like that they're not just saying "screw everyone." They're talking about severance for the regular folks who were working on the GCP. That's decent. We're not trying to ruin anyone's lives, just get our funds back where they belong.

So, yeah, I'm voting for this. It's not fun, but it's the right thing to do. We need to show everyone that we're serious about being responsible with our DAO's money, and that we're gonna keep things open and honest. Let's learn from this, and make sure we do better next time.

So, if I understand the latest posts correctly, the plan is to retain the status quo while ensuring transparency and disclosures via more....reports?

As a gamer and game dev, I tend not to lean towards any chain or any game, but instead looking at the long-term overarching picture of gaming as a whole because gamers have always gravitated towards games and communities that hold their interest. Web3 gaming is no different from any other gaming sector, except for the fact that thus far it has failed - miserably - to attract core gamers. Instead we have Web3 gaming dominated by gamblers and speculators who are more focused on making money than they are in engagement. The mistakes there have already been made and there's no going back. But what if we had the chance to change that - for the better?

IMX, AVAX, Treasure, XAI et al - across all chains - are all siting on catalogs of underperforming games. We refer to that as the "Steam Enigma". And collectively, millions have been thrown at breaking the cycle of Web3 transient gaming engagement. That has thus far failed to yield tangible results because Web3 gaming engagement is transient by nature. When you flood an ecosystem with a lot of games, UA aside, the end result is that breaking out presents an insurmountable challenge for teams - regardless of funding, experience or clout.

Anyone paying attention - and who understands the metrics - already realizes that the era of token funded games is at an end. That's just not going to work as it once did - unless of course the teams are more focused on token-funded raises so they can get an early exit while abandoning the games when the music stops and the speculators have all moved on post-TGE.

Djinn, Karel et al came up with the idea for the GCP at a different time in the gaming cycle. A year ago, sentiments were high, the outlook seemed great - and Web3 gaming was supposed to be taking off. Then it didn't. Most of us who actually do this for a living - right here on this forum - said that gaming has its swings and misses and that the risks were high. And so, the GCP needed to ensure that it was positioned to take steps in mitigating those risks and that throwing money at gaming was never - ever - a guarantee of success.

Every single day there are well-funded gaming teams either closing, being sold or downsizing their teams. That's not a fluke, it's a sign of the times ahead.

All that is to say, I still maintain that the GCP has to make the hiring of people with actual gaming and game dev experience a top priority. And they need to be in the intake team so that even before it gets to the council there is a good chance that the team and project have been thoroughly researched, vetted and the due diligence solid. Which is what I had originally assumed was being done. Turning it into a VC model isn't going to yield the expects results because lets face it, how is that different from what came before - and has subsequently failed?

Build a better mouse trap.

Currently, as per the current transparency report, we have this structure. Image courtesy of the GCP - Strategic Update (March 2025)

According to that chart, from what I can tell, the GCP is still missing about 6 positions. And nowhere in there is the mention of any position that is "gaming" related. So, where are the gaming people? The people with actual gaming and game dev experience? The people who, when speaking with a gamedev team, understand precisely what is being conveyed, relayed and planned about a project? Every single successful games publisher, licensing distributor or funding team, either has such a person on staff or bring them in at some point - even if they are external. If such people are defined as being a part of pre-existing roles (e.g. Content Lead) in that chart, then that brings me to this...

Another point to consider. While the Project Review process as outlined in the transparency report is solid enough, Screen One and Two are the ultimate points of failure. And so, that's where the focus needs to be in terms of a proper and all-encompassing due diligence into a project's chances of success. Yes, while 90% of game projects will ultimately fail to yield the expected results, "failure" is relative to the investment made. Meaning, is the GCP looking for a 2x, a 10x or a break-even?

The GCP grant from the Mar 2024 startup was a 200M $ARB ask.

On Mar 15, 2024 $ARB was trading at around $2.00. Today, it is at $0.33. That's an 84% drop. And so, as of this writing, the 200M ARB grant to the GCP fund is $66M.

This means that the value and number of inaugural GCP projects are ultimately affected - especially when you take into account the costs of running the GCP project.

To wit: Off The Grid, a standard-fare AAA game with Web3 elements, raised $82M. It's still in early dev, and the token TGE is today. Before that, we had Shrapnel.

That the GCP says they have already signed 66 projects makes it all the more important for the interested/vested parties to get insight into what those projects are, what they cost, the expectations, the ROI tracking etc. Given the above post by the ARB Foundation, they're obviously aware of these projects, have confidence in them etc. All said and done, I see that as a good sign.

However, I still have concerns about the viability of the GCP actually signing 66 projects within a span of 12 months even though it clearly wasn't staffed to any meaningful degree during that period. That's not normal and is completely outside the norm. Was it rushed? Were corners cut? Were projects signed because of the pedigree of the team sans normal DD etc?

Lastly, it is my understanding that the GCP lacks the infra and team to lead a funding round. So, what is the play here? Do teams have to then first get a funding lead before engaging with the GCP investment team?

In conclusion, I still believe that the GCP should be setup as a third-party game distribution studio structure, staffed with experienced gamers/gamedevs because this Web3 version of a VC inspired fund is the very same playbook that has seen very little success in Web3 gaming.

To be clear, I still support the idea of the GCP because its success means that Web3 gaming will have a chance to prosper in some way. While most of us have since moved on for one reason or another, the fact remains that any Web3 gaming win is a win for all of us who are vested in the sector. And most of us aren't transient in gaming. We've been here since the beginning.

This proposal represents the nuclear option to claw back funds from a DAO-approved program and we are thankful that all community members, contributors and delegates, took the proposal seriously from the onset. It appears there is a resolution in sight that will result in the proposal not going forward for a vote, but there are still a few lessons that we as a community should take from this experience.

1. Less twitter, more discourse. It is our understanding that the proposal’s origin comes from this twitter post. We should be mindful that most interaction in our DAO occurs on this forum, on telegram and on governance calls. If a delegate, or contributor, is having an issue with a DAO-approved program, then we should keep the discourse amongst ourselves and attempt to find the best possible resolution before publishing nuclear-like proposals.

2. Constructive feedback. There are many people lurking the forum and telegram chats who will read comments at face value. They do not understand the nuances of comments and will quickly skim the discussion to figure out what is happening. This can result in miscommunication if comments are distracting in any way. We should hold everyone to exceptionally high standards to ensure communication is constructive, maximally polite, and focused on the matter at hand. This will help us to continue attracting the best contributors to our DAO.

3. Unnecessary media attention. All eyes are on the ArbitrumDAO. This thread has had >1k views over the past 4 days. When a proposal is published to the forum, it can, and will, be picked up by the media. Within a few hours, several outlets including TheBlock, Leviathan News and Cointelegraph published a story. The problem is that outlets often have misleading titles which are misinterpreted by readers. As a result, in this case, many external people were under the impression that the GCP funds were guaranteed to be clawed back and the program would end, which is not true.

4. Harming GCP’s efforts. Unfortunately, the media attention has led to practical operational issues for the GCP. It has interfered with ongoing and potentially future investments as projects (and co-investors) are now unsure whether the GCP is at risk. It has also harmed on-going recruitment efforts as quality candidates are now more reluctant to leave their current jobs for the GCP as headlines indicate that the DAO will dissolve it. It will take time for the team and program to recover which is unfortunate given the positive outcome from GDC last week.

5. Faith in GCP Council. The ArbitrumDAO elected 5 members to serve on the oversight committee of the GCP. They are tasked with approving budgets, hiring plans, treasury management, evaluating deals, providing strategic direction to the GCP program, and overseeing performance reviews. This is all accounted for in the GCP’s bylaws. Everyone should allow the GCP council to perform their job and use them to get your questions answered.

6. Transparency. All DAO-approved programs should seek to be transparent, whenever possible, with the community. If there is a delay for an anticipated disclosure, then the team should clearly communicate it with an updated timeline. We recommend all programs to appoint a dedicated individual (or team) focused on DAO relations that can support disclosures alongside help manage relationships with the DAO. In this case, there was already an on-going negotiation with CastleCap to support the GCP program prior to this proposal becoming public, but unfortunately it was not completed on time.

We (the Arbitrum Foundation) have been heavily involved with the GCP Council and the GCP Team to help it become operational. It is now in a good position to start carrying out their mandate as an essential function of the wider Arbitrum Gaming front and we believe they should be allowed to do so. Let’s support the team alongside all other DAO-approved programs to ensure that Arbitrum continues to win.

Honestly, reading through this, it feels like we're all looking at a project that just... didn't take off like we hoped. You know, those big, ambitious plans that sounded amazing at the time? Yeah, that. And now, we're left with this situation where we're basically saying, "Okay, let's cut our losses and move on."

And honestly? I get it. We've all been there. You put your faith in something, maybe throw some resources at it, and then it just fizzles. And what I appreciate about this proposal is it's not about pointing fingers. It's about being responsible.

We're talking about our DAO's money here, right? Money that's supposed to build something awesome for all of us. And when things aren't working out, we gotta be grown-ups and say, "Alright, let's reel it in."

I mean, the whole "transparency" thing? That's huge. We're a community, not some shadowy backroom deal. We need to know what's going on, where the money's going, and what we're getting for it. And when a project isn't giving us that, yeah, we gotta step in.

And I like that they're not just saying "screw everyone." They're talking about severance for the regular folks who were working on the GCP. That's decent. We're not trying to ruin anyone's lives, just get our funds back where they belong.

So, yeah, I'm voting for this. It's not fun, but it's the right thing to do. We need to show everyone that we're serious about being responsible with our DAO's money, and that we're gonna keep things open and honest. Let's learn from this, and make sure we do better next time.

@usamaro Can we get any metric that supports both these claims (Arbitrum is a key hub for gaming projects + network effects benefiting DeFi/RWAs)? Based on awareness alone, it seems Avalanche is the key crypto gaming hub (i.e., Off the Grid, Shrapnel, Maplestory, Nexus, etc.).

The 2024 State of web3 gaming report by Game7 is one reference in regards to Arbitrum being a key hub for gaming. This tweet summarizes the report. Some quotes from the report: "Immutable and Arbitrum ecosystems grew the most over the past 12 months. Arbitrum achieved a 68% YoY growth to 119 titles" and "Immutable, Arbitrum and Avalanche Welcomed Most Migrating Games".

In terms of the comparison to avalanche, there are 2 key differences in my opinion.

• Firstly, our strategy has been less focused on AAA gaming, we believe that the more casual type of gamer (instead of a hardcore gamer) is likely more open to new models such as NFTs/Tokens etc. We also see that mobile gaming (synonymous with casual gamers) captures 48% of all gaming revenue (source). The time to market and funding requirements of AAA games is also much longer, making it arguably less of a fit for the fast paced landscape of the crypto world (for now). That's not to say we are ignoring the AAA sector, but we put less of an emphasis on it than others. An example of where this strategy paid off has been with Proof of Play's Orbit chain consuming more mGas/sec than any other rollup for most of 2024 according to www.rollup.wtf.
• Secondly, Avalanche has had a $200m gaming fund (2.3x larger than the current GCP budget) since Q4 2021 (Arbitrum One just went to mainnet at this time for reference). I'm biased, but i believe the community ownership of the fund and eventual return of any profits going to the DAO is a better setup, though i'll admit it's the harder path, as we see herein :laughing:.

Regarding the 25 gaming chains, this ecosystem has been building up since the first Orbit chain launch in January 2024. For reference, the GCP received it's first funding this month after completion of entity and bylaw setup. Two of the GCP's deals in final stages have chains in their plans so I expect this to accelerate and i'm excited about the potential.

Hey Argonaut,

In our opinion, just because others are doing it doesn’t mean we should follow without evaluating the downsides

I'm fully aligned here regarding not just following suit. There are many examples of Arbitrum going against the grain in a positive manner. I think a token holder owned entity of the DAO with the vision to grow the ecosystem through investments rather than relying 100% on grants (or not and falling behind the competition) is a great example of DAO innovation.

Regarding the GameFi stats that you mentioned, i suspect that the failure rate is partly due to too many teams receiving funding in an overly loose macro period. Taking equity (in addition to tokens) in the studios plus going exceptionally deep on DD is a mitigation of this, and i see the GCP (with input from the GCP council, Offchain Labs and Arbitrum Foundation) having a high bar. If I were to guess, these stats that you shared wouldn't differ too much between verticals like NFTs, DeFi, RWAs etc if we are looking historically. Though i suspect we are on the cusp of real adoption due to friendlier regulations, so i'm cautiously optimistic that the industry has tailwinds.

Do you think the amount invested, and more importantly, the valuation at the time of investment

The current valuation of the fund is around $85m, much smaller than competing ecosystem gaming funds (e.g. Avalanche Blizzard $200m). The valuation at the time of the tally proposal is likely not relevant as the tokens are distributed to GCP through vesting over 3 years.

How long will the DAO keep investing in this? Until the GCP runs out of funds, or will more funding be needed after that?

The DAO has empowered the council with detailed oversight of the individual deals and budget. If the investments don't look likely to be providing a return on capital, then i'd expect this to be raised to the DAO. With that said, equity and token investments in companies take time to mature, often reflecting a prolonged J-curve, so we won't know right away, but i can say for sure now is not the time to make judgement on that given the initial vested funds were only transferred to the GCP. Let's remember that the alternative is a grants program with arguably a 0% direct financial return rate.

But if you were to revise this proposal so the program continues, how would you adjust it to include clear failure metrics that would justify ending the program if they’re met?

Upcoming transparency reports will be detailed in that the investment portfolio projects will be documented. This provides an opportunity for the DAO to assess the strength of the portfolio in real-time. However, similarly to my answer above, investments will require time to mature. Prior to maturity, the council's judgement will provide the best protection here, and we have a strong cohort on the council to make this judgement early.

@usamaro Can we get any metric that supports both these claims (Arbitrum is a key hub for gaming projects + network effects benefiting DeFi/RWAs)? Based on awareness alone, it seems Avalanche is the key crypto gaming hub (i.e., Off the Grid, Shrapnel, Maplestory, Nexus, etc.).

The 2024 State of web3 gaming report by Game7 is one reference in regards to Arbitrum being a key hub for gaming. This tweet summarizes the report. Some quotes from the report: "Immutable and Arbitrum ecosystems grew the most over the past 12 months. Arbitrum achieved a 68% YoY growth to 119 titles" and "Immutable, Arbitrum and Avalanche Welcomed Most Migrating Games".

In terms of the comparison to avalanche, there are 2 key differences in my opinion.

• Firstly, our strategy has been less focused on AAA gaming, we believe that the more casual type of gamer (instead of a hardcore gamer) is likely more open to new models such as NFTs/Tokens etc. We also see that mobile gaming (synonymous with casual gamers) captures 48% of all gaming revenue (source). The time to market and funding requirements of AAA games is also much longer, making it arguably less of a fit for the fast paced landscape of the crypto world (for now). That's not to say we are ignoring the AAA sector, but we put less of an emphasis on it than others. An example of where this strategy paid off has been with Proof of Play's Orbit chain consuming more mGas/sec than any other rollup for most of 2024 according to www.rollup.wtf.
• Secondly, Avalanche has had a $200m gaming fund (2.3x larger than the current GCP budget) since Q4 2021 (Arbitrum One just went to mainnet at this time for reference). I'm biased, but i believe the community ownership of the fund and eventual return of any profits going to the DAO is a better setup, though i'll admit it's the harder path, as we see herein :laughing:.

Regarding the 25 gaming chains, this ecosystem has been building up since the first Orbit chain launch in January 2024. For reference, the GCP received it's first funding this month after completion of entity and bylaw setup. Two of the GCP's deals in final stages have chains in their plans so I expect this to accelerate and i'm excited about the potential.

Hey Argonaut,

In our opinion, just because others are doing it doesn’t mean we should follow without evaluating the downsides

I'm fully aligned here regarding not just following suit. There are many examples of Arbitrum going against the grain in a positive manner. I think a token holder owned entity of the DAO with the vision to grow the ecosystem through investments rather than relying 100% on grants (or not and falling behind the competition) is a great example of DAO innovation.

Regarding the GameFi stats that you mentioned, i suspect that the failure rate is partly due to too many teams receiving funding in an overly loose macro period. Taking equity (in addition to tokens) in the studios plus going exceptionally deep on DD is a mitigation of this, and i see the GCP (with input from the GCP council, Offchain Labs and Arbitrum Foundation) having a high bar. If I were to guess, these stats that you shared wouldn't differ too much between verticals like NFTs, DeFi, RWAs etc if we are looking historically. Though i suspect we are on the cusp of real adoption due to friendlier regulations, so i'm cautiously optimistic that the industry has tailwinds.

Do you think the amount invested, and more importantly, the valuation at the time of investment

The current valuation of the fund is around $85m, much smaller than competing ecosystem gaming funds (e.g. Avalanche Blizzard $200m). The valuation at the time of the tally proposal is likely not relevant as the tokens are distributed to GCP through vesting over 3 years.

How long will the DAO keep investing in this? Until the GCP runs out of funds, or will more funding be needed after that?

The DAO has empowered the council with detailed oversight of the individual deals and budget. If the investments don't look likely to be providing a return on capital, then i'd expect this to be raised to the DAO. With that said, equity and token investments in companies take time to mature, often reflecting a prolonged J-curve, so we won't know right away, but i can say for sure now is not the time to make judgement on that given the initial vested funds were only transferred to the GCP. Let's remember that the alternative is a grants program with arguably a 0% direct financial return rate.

But if you were to revise this proposal so the program continues, how would you adjust it to include clear failure metrics that would justify ending the program if they’re met?

Upcoming transparency reports will be detailed in that the investment portfolio projects will be documented. This provides an opportunity for the DAO to assess the strength of the portfolio in real-time. However, similarly to my answer above, investments will require time to mature. Prior to maturity, the council's judgement will provide the best protection here, and we have a strong cohort on the council to make this judgement early.

Hi @NathanVDH,

I’m David Bolger, a member of the GCP council. I am also Head of Gaming & Consumer Partnerships at Offchain Labs. I am replying here from my POV purely in my capacity as a council member on why I think this proposal is detrimental to the growth of Arbitrum.

I’d like to highlight some key context that I think is not accounted for in this proposal.

The Strategic Importance of Gaming for Arbitrum

The gaming audience is one of the largest consumers of digital assets, with global gaming revenue exceeding $185 billion last year (source). This audience already has a strong appetite for digital ownership, making blockchain technology a natural fit.

Arbitrum has become a key hub for gaming projects, with significant network effects benefiting the broader ecosystem, including DeFi, RWA, and consumer applications. Maintaining a dedicated investment strategy for this sector is essential to sustaining and expanding Arbitrum’s position in the market.

The Reality of Blockchain Partnerships

Having worked in the blockchain partnership space for the past three years, I can confidently say that no chain can remain competitive without allocating financial resources to attract and support builders. The industry is fiercely competitive, with rival chains routinely offering grants ranging from $5M to $100M. In some cases, single deals from competing chains have been rumored to exceed the total GCP allocation (currently valued at $85M).

Arbitrum DAO has consistently taken a more disciplined approach, prioritizing sustainable investment over excessive grant spending. In my view, the GCP is a key pillar of this strategy, and shutting it down would severely limit Arbitrum’s ability to continue to compete for top-tier partnerships.

Balancing Speed and Diligence

While faster execution is always desirable, maintaining oversight is critical to responsible fund allocation. The GCP council, with input from the Arbitrum Foundation as observers, has maintained rigorous oversight over the GCP. This includes direct engagement from at least two council members in candidate evaluations and final interviews.

To date, over 50 deals have been put forward to the GCP, yet fewer than 5% have reached the final stages—demonstrating a clear commitment to due diligence. While this approach has led to some frustration within the ecosystem, it ultimately ensures that treasury funds are allocated effectively, rather than distributed indiscriminately or carelessly.

Treasure Chain

Treasure chain taking a deal with another ecosystem does not define Arbitrum’s gaming strategy. There are currently over 25 gaming-related chains building with Arbitrum’s tech stack—more than any other blockchain framework. Additionally, traditional gaming industry giants such as Ubisoft, Square Enix, and Tap Nation are developing on Arbitrum. I am also extremely excited about the pipeline of projects which the GCP currently has in its final stages. The ecosystem’s growth is robust and diversified and not reliant on any single project.

Final Thoughts

Rather than shutting down a program which has strategic value, we should continue refining and expanding sustainable growth initiatives.

For anyone seeking further insights, I’m happy to discuss this topic in more detail on a call or via text. Please feel free to reach out to me on Telegram (@david_cocora).

Hi @NathanVDH,

I’m David Bolger, a member of the GCP council. I am also Head of Gaming & Consumer Partnerships at Offchain Labs. I am replying here from my POV purely in my capacity as a council member on why I think this proposal is detrimental to the growth of Arbitrum.

I’d like to highlight some key context that I think is not accounted for in this proposal.

The Strategic Importance of Gaming for Arbitrum

The gaming audience is one of the largest consumers of digital assets, with global gaming revenue exceeding $185 billion last year (source). This audience already has a strong appetite for digital ownership, making blockchain technology a natural fit.

Arbitrum has become a key hub for gaming projects, with significant network effects benefiting the broader ecosystem, including DeFi, RWA, and consumer applications. Maintaining a dedicated investment strategy for this sector is essential to sustaining and expanding Arbitrum’s position in the market.

The Reality of Blockchain Partnerships

Having worked in the blockchain partnership space for the past three years, I can confidently say that no chain can remain competitive without allocating financial resources to attract and support builders. The industry is fiercely competitive, with rival chains routinely offering grants ranging from $5M to $100M. In some cases, single deals from competing chains have been rumored to exceed the total GCP allocation (currently valued at $85M).

Arbitrum DAO has consistently taken a more disciplined approach, prioritizing sustainable investment over excessive grant spending. In my view, the GCP is a key pillar of this strategy, and shutting it down would severely limit Arbitrum’s ability to continue to compete for top-tier partnerships.

Balancing Speed and Diligence

While faster execution is always desirable, maintaining oversight is critical to responsible fund allocation. The GCP council, with input from the Arbitrum Foundation as observers, has maintained rigorous oversight over the GCP. This includes direct engagement from at least two council members in candidate evaluations and final interviews.

To date, over 50 deals have been put forward to the GCP, yet fewer than 5% have reached the final stages—demonstrating a clear commitment to due diligence. While this approach has led to some frustration within the ecosystem, it ultimately ensures that treasury funds are allocated effectively, rather than distributed indiscriminately or carelessly.

Treasure Chain

Treasure chain taking a deal with another ecosystem does not define Arbitrum’s gaming strategy. There are currently over 25 gaming-related chains building with Arbitrum’s tech stack—more than any other blockchain framework. Additionally, traditional gaming industry giants such as Ubisoft, Square Enix, and Tap Nation are developing on Arbitrum. I am also extremely excited about the pipeline of projects which the GCP currently has in its final stages. The ecosystem’s growth is robust and diversified and not reliant on any single project.

Final Thoughts

Rather than shutting down a program which has strategic value, we should continue refining and expanding sustainable growth initiatives.

For anyone seeking further insights, I’m happy to discuss this topic in more detail on a call or via text. Please feel free to reach out to me on Telegram (@david_cocora).

Judging by the responses both private and the views to the now-hidden original post, it appears that some people did find value in the post - despite it's length and copious amounts of snark.

Below is a revised version sans the snark and the tongue-in-cheek humor. I still have the original which I will be converting to a Medium article. So, if anyone is interested in it, do feel free to send me a DM or ping me on Telegram.

=======

I don't even know where to begin, but since no-one is likely to say the quiet part out loud because God forbid someone wants something from someone who is in the [Web3] mix, here goes....

First, I have been involved in the gaming industry for over four decades now, made - and survived - many partnerships, trends, downturns etc. All while being an indie who just loves building games and tech. So, needless to say, I know a thing or two about, you know, gaming and game dev.

My foray into Web3 started back in 2021 when I deduced that Web3 represented a blue ocean opportunity for gaming. I have written tomes (1, 2, 3) about what I see - and believe - will be the failure of Web3 gaming - and why. While very few paid attention (Even though I'm a well-known legacy white hat dev, I'm not a AAA game dev - so who cares what I think, right?) to the alarm that myself and other legacy game devs were sounding,

I supported - and still support - the idea of the GCP since day one and continue to follow it's progress mostly because @Djinn is one of the most accessible and forthcoming people in the space. Bar none. I can never imagine a time whereby I would show up in the GCP spaces or pinged him on TG about a material update, without him responding.

When the GCP first appeared - even as my own ApeChain DAO was on the verge of it's own collapse (which it incidentally came to mere months later) - I made my opinions and suggestions known here. And in those I outlined everything that I personally knew and have experienced in my 40 yr track record as a gamer (first) and a game dev (second) - and why I believe that the GCP is doomed to fail if lessons learned as well as tried and proven methods weren't adhered to. Key to those are this missive.

[quote] Getting DAOs to fund gaming isn’t going to work out as planned; and so, will always yield failure and/r malcontent. Even if, as in the case of this proposal idea, it’s to funnel the money to publishers like Treasure who are already sitting on a list of underperforming (note: a fun game doesn’t mean that it’s making money ) games because there no guarantees in an industry that yields a 90% failure rate. [/quote]

Then there was this excerpt from another post.

[quote] How is ARB going to support gaming so that it’s sustainable and with upside for the DAO?

Short of giving money out and wishing on a prayer, none of those things are achievable due to all the aforementioned dependencies and insurmountable challenges that come with gaming. Neither the foundation nor the DAO proper can be expected to reasonably perform any of the functions required of a publishing arm. So, what’s left? Treat it as marketing BD and with incentives. Which is basically a “hands off” grants program with minimal entry requirements front-loaded with the usual checks and balances. In other words, no different from how the pre-existing ARB grants already work. [/quote]

Note that in that post above, I provided an outline of the legacy steps that us devs, publishers, and distributors take in making a determination on how to go from funding a game to GTM to release.

While they didn't have to take this level of advice, from what I can tell this past year - and 9 months into the GCP kick-off - none have been adhered to. Instead we have this:

[quote]

• First screening / review by Arbitrum Gaming team members (includes OCL / AF / GCP)
• Team interviews / conversations
• Additional DD
• If DD passes, initial proposal structured
• In parallel, proposals are reviewed by IC or grants committee
• IC / grants DD follow up questions and review
• Final Proposal stage if IC / GC passes
• Final agreement / negotiation
• Final legal DD and KYC / KYB
• Funding
• Post-funding support [/quote]

While I realize that's a more high-level list - and btw I have had discussions with Djinn about specifically this - the fact remains that even at a macro level, industry best-practices are to be followed. To the extent that projects still fail, at the very least, adhering to such practices tends to not only de-risk but also allows outside-the-box thinking which then augments such processes in order to find what fits, what works, and what's less risk.

The GCP has thus far failed to yield tangible results in this regard - but not for the reasons pointing to any one person or reason but because, by nature of being related to games and game funding, it was doomed to fail from the start. Why? Because, guess what - who else here thinks that it's a good idea to not make priority hires people who have:

1. Designed, developed, managed, marketed or shipped a game

or

2. Managed a game dev team or game dev studio

Yes - Greg is moonlighting - and he's awesome; but you literally need people with the aforementioned experience and expertise in a full-time role because despite what Web3 will have you believe, the role of a [gaming] BD person means that person has a track record of experience and skills which encompass gaming. That person is able to talk to devs at a peer-to-peer level, understand the project, the process, the tools etc. This issue is precisely how Web3 ended up with so many failed gaming ventures - failures which eclipse even the failures of trad gaming as a whole. And all because most Web3 BD people have zero or near zero actual gaming or game dev experience.

Another peeve. The Gaming Catalyst website isn't reflective of the aspirations - and not even in a funny ha-ha kind of way. Go look at it. An $85M fund with copious amounts of disposable cash, paid for what doesn't appear to look like a game-centric funding initiative.

My cursory observations:

• No mission statement (no, the two linked docs aren't that)
• Nothing that even remotely says "Oy! We're totally attracting the cream of the gaming crop"
• Literally NO information about WTAF the GCP is. What it does have are the usual talking point fluff words that are rife in Web3 because apparently we're all idiots now who don't read anything
• No links back to this discussion forum which contains a lot more data/info on GCP than a barebones website
• Not a single - not one - image, link or ref that says "This is about gaming! Go call mom!".
• No links to pertinent program data such as the transparency report
• No team links, bios, expertise, tasking etc. Which goes back to the same transparency issues that all have been complaining about for months now. An $85M fund operating in the shadows with no "point man" (no - that's not Djinn) is absolutely why everyone should be asking the questions now being posed. NOTE: This was Jan 13th when someone else asked.

To me, that website doesn't say "We're totally serious about gaming!".

Let me rewind a bit. How did the GCP program lose someone like Andrew Green? NOTE: While I know how/when/why this happened, being old school I have always respected the boundaries of confidentiality. And so, my original comment wasn't designed to point the finger at the GCP as being responsible for his departure nor to delve into anything that would cause me to divulge private & confidential material. All that I can say to this - in the interest of clarity for those inquiring - is that Karel leaving and then Andrew - who he nominated - later following him to that venture, made sense. Especially since the GCP was obviously not up and running, and its scope and premise likely didn't fit with what Karel envisioned for his platform. It happens

Read the entire GCP update thread, then accept this challenge: List the names, bios, and GCP tasking for everyone associated with the program. No cheating.

It's not on the website or in this forum. But it's in the transparency report which, at a glance, still appears to be incomplete.

From what I've observed, most questions asked of the GCP receive a resounding "Yes". Then mostly nothing happens which is what leads to all the calls for transparency and such.

Thus far, the DAO hasn't gained anything by way of funding the GCP. There have been far too many issues - all of which go back to my original points: they're seemingly over their heads because setting up something like this is no small feat.

And when it comes to DAOs, they tend to [consistently] fail because most people would never support the idea that voting on important and financially material things should be down to the size of your bags rather than the merits of the proposal. Even in corporations, the number of shares held tend not to have any material effect on the number of votes which can be used.

The GCP has a rumored "66" deals in the pipeline, yet still there hasn't been a single - not one - announcement about any deal, team, product, project or even the tooth fairy. And no list. I can almost guarantee that if/when that list is ever made public, that there would be even more questions and arguments because all involved would have their own opinions about what is a good or bad deal. That despite the fact that the success and failure of a project - as we all know - has very little to do with the team or the project, but more to do with the PMF. And timing. And luck. That's why even the best and well-funded teams with the best products continue to fail. Especially in gaming. Mostly in Web3.

Not to mention that, despite the intent and best efforts, the first transparency report isn't all that transparent because to me it just reads like pages of words and phrases on a road to: "Thus far we haven't achieved much anything impactful".

I challenge anyone to change my mind. I'm the guy who writes design docs, technical specs, engineering frameworks - and manages teams of engineers who, more than anything else, hate documenting anything and will avoid it like the plague if they could. And so, it is easy for me to decipher what constitutes an informative data-driven report. Yes - of course anyone of us can ping Djinn or Chris about anything, and immediately get a response. But why go through all that trouble when most of the inquiries are better served in either an FAQ (e.g. on the website) or in such a report? Plus, it saves time while reducing drama.

When gaming teams can go deploy on other chains - including ARB - without having to wait around for months on end to get an answer let alone funding for their project, guess what happens when word gets around. Serious teams don't have time to wait around or wade through a convoluted process when they have projects to build and require the funding to do so.

While I still support the idea of the GCP - as I always have - I can no longer support it in it's current form because, on-going [gaming] trends aside, I have come to believe that the odds of success aren't currently in its favor.

Giving money to the deserving few shouldn't be a challenge. But for too long and too often, Web3 has routinely funded the wrong teams. And so, Web3 needs to stop rewarding failure after failure because the end result is that programs like GCP will not only find it challenging to curate worthy projects and teams but will also have an uphill battle in achieving success. Gaming is hard. Very hard. And that's why gaming routinely requires specialist handling and expertise for any team and/or project to break out, let alone be a success.

At this point, my recommendation is for the GCP to wind down and let the ARB Foundation put those funds into gaming via already established processes and procedures which are doing a lot better and have thus far served the ARB [gaming] community (I'm not in it and I don't hold any tokens) in more ways that one. Why mess with what already works? Why take the risk and the additional costs to setup a new fund when - as most of us said from the start - it could have been done within the scope of pre-existing ARB programs? Though the foundation doles out game funding in grants and not investments, I don't think it would have taken a year for them to retro-fit that program with an investment option. To be honest, having followed GCP from the start, never in my wildest dreams did I think that over a year later not only would there not be a single funded project but also not a single word about the curation of said projects. To the extent that most of us just moved on to other chains, similar to what Treasure ended up doing.

Djinn, Karel and co had a dream, and Djinn has done his utmost, put his best foot forward and stuck to what he wanted to build as per his vision. But in a world where even the best laid plans of mice and men tend to fall apart at first contact with reality, the unfortunate result is one of timing and opportunity.

To try and to fail is no disgrace. What matters is whether or not you are brave enough to get up and do it again - differently. I would know. I've been there, done that - got the scars and the derision that comes with the territory.

Since this is really up to the voting whales, if the GCP is to continue - I feel that radical changes need to be made. What those are, I don't know because most of what's done and pending still need clarity in order for outsiders like us to make an informed determination.

With any such radical changes, Djinn, alongside his stellar cohort, Rick, can then build an operating team of full-time people who have GAMING AND GAME DEV EXPERIENCE.

I also feel that there is no need for a council because despite best intentions imo it's really just there to give whale bags some degree of comfort while spending money with currently zero ROI. Too many cooks and all that.

Follow some - if not all - of the guidelines that I outlined before.

Put the whole GCP program on chain alongside a robust project in-take web form - complete with a counter showing the number of intake, the status, a brief description etc. But if that's going to be done, why not just roll it back into the pre-existing ARB grants program?

Anyway, the goal is to build a lean, mean GCP program, with complete transparency - and which operates in an efficient manner.

Seeing as it's gaming related, though it still stands a 90% chance of failure, all it takes is one or two hits to see a meaningful ROI. Then again, due to gaming and current game funding trends, that's just saying when the whales voted for an $85M (originally $200M) fund that's likely to lose 90% of its funding due to how gaming metrics tend to play out, they basically voted to set $76.5M on fire. They could very well have just bought $ARB and burned it. Same end result.

That is all. Please don't hate me.

ps....

• In the past three months alone, game studios and projects that raised over $300M in an avg of 14 months, have failed and shutdown. And the recent GDC - regardless of all the nonsense you see online by the usual larping suspects - is a wakeup call that says gaming will continue to decline and that Web3 gaming - for all intent and purposes - is on life support. Anyone who believes - even for a minute - that the general failure of trad gaming means those devs and projects are going to spill over to Web3 - is a fool.

• The Konvoy Q4/24 Gaming Report states that "Gaming VC Funding is down -47% QoQ" Their website PDF functionality is broken atm, but Game7 has a great synopsis.

• You should probably read InvestGames' Games Investment Review Q4 2024 Executive Summary Report and their 2025 Gaming Industry Report

Treasure DAO was a prominent early backer of the GCP, but it is not synonymous with Web3 gaming on Arbitrum. Its departure reflects a shift in its own roadmap—not the death knell of gaming on the chain.

Treasure DAO leaving is an opportunity to redefine Arbitrum’s gaming strategy—not abandon it. Leadership is about setting direction, not reacting to who stays or goes.

A resilient DAO invests in systems that outlast individual contributors. Perhaps an effort to fix what’s broken should be considered—without forfeiting the mission.

What do you consider to be "good feedback"? Isn't that subjective? So, that means, even if I re-posted it and removed the original joke that had it removed, it will likely suffer the same fate for an unrelated reason.

So, now what?

Judging by the responses both private and the views to the now-hidden original post, it appears that some people did find value in the post - despite it's length and copious amounts of snark.

Below is a revised version sans the snark and the tongue-in-cheek humor. I still have the original which I will be converting to a Medium article. So, if anyone is interested in it, do feel free to send me a DM or ping me on Telegram.

=======

I don't even know where to begin, but since no-one is likely to say the quiet part out loud because God forbid someone wants something from someone who is in the [Web3] mix, here goes....

First, I have been involved in the gaming industry for over four decades now, made - and survived - many partnerships, trends, downturns etc. All while being an indie who just loves building games and tech. So, needless to say, I know a thing or two about, you know, gaming and game dev.

My foray into Web3 started back in 2021 when I deduced that Web3 represented a blue ocean opportunity for gaming. I have written tomes (1, 2, 3) about what I see - and believe - will be the failure of Web3 gaming - and why. While very few paid attention (Even though I'm a well-known legacy white hat dev, I'm not a AAA game dev - so who cares what I think, right?) to the alarm that myself and other legacy game devs were sounding,

I supported - and still support - the idea of the GCP since day one and continue to follow it's progress mostly because @Djinn is one of the most accessible and forthcoming people in the space. Bar none. I can never imagine a time whereby I would show up in the GCP spaces or pinged him on TG about a material update, without him responding.

When the GCP first appeared - even as my own ApeChain DAO was on the verge of it's own collapse (which it incidentally came to mere months later) - I made my opinions and suggestions known here. And in those I outlined everything that I personally knew and have experienced in my 40 yr track record as a gamer (first) and a game dev (second) - and why I believe that the GCP is doomed to fail if lessons learned as well as tried and proven methods weren't adhered to. Key to those are this missive.

[quote] Getting DAOs to fund gaming isn’t going to work out as planned; and so, will always yield failure and/r malcontent. Even if, as in the case of this proposal idea, it’s to funnel the money to publishers like Treasure who are already sitting on a list of underperforming (note: a fun game doesn’t mean that it’s making money ) games because there no guarantees in an industry that yields a 90% failure rate. [/quote]

Then there was this excerpt from another post.

[quote] How is ARB going to support gaming so that it’s sustainable and with upside for the DAO?

Short of giving money out and wishing on a prayer, none of those things are achievable due to all the aforementioned dependencies and insurmountable challenges that come with gaming. Neither the foundation nor the DAO proper can be expected to reasonably perform any of the functions required of a publishing arm. So, what’s left? Treat it as marketing BD and with incentives. Which is basically a “hands off” grants program with minimal entry requirements front-loaded with the usual checks and balances. In other words, no different from how the pre-existing ARB grants already work. [/quote]

Note that in that post above, I provided an outline of the legacy steps that us devs, publishers, and distributors take in making a determination on how to go from funding a game to GTM to release.

While they didn't have to take this level of advice, from what I can tell this past year - and 9 months into the GCP kick-off - none have been adhered to. Instead we have this:

[quote]

• First screening / review by Arbitrum Gaming team members (includes OCL / AF / GCP)
• Team interviews / conversations
• Additional DD
• If DD passes, initial proposal structured
• In parallel, proposals are reviewed by IC or grants committee
• IC / grants DD follow up questions and review
• Final Proposal stage if IC / GC passes
• Final agreement / negotiation
• Final legal DD and KYC / KYB
• Funding
• Post-funding support [/quote]

While I realize that's a more high-level list - and btw I have had discussions with Djinn about specifically this - the fact remains that even at a macro level, industry best-practices are to be followed. To the extent that projects still fail, at the very least, adhering to such practices tends to not only de-risk but also allows outside-the-box thinking which then augments such processes in order to find what fits, what works, and what's less risk.

The GCP has thus far failed to yield tangible results in this regard - but not for the reasons pointing to any one person or reason but because, by nature of being related to games and game funding, it was doomed to fail from the start. Why? Because, guess what - who else here thinks that it's a good idea to not make priority hires people who have:

1. Designed, developed, managed, marketed or shipped a game

or

2. Managed a game dev team or game dev studio

Yes - Greg is moonlighting - and he's awesome; but you literally need people with the aforementioned experience and expertise in a full-time role because despite what Web3 will have you believe, the role of a [gaming] BD person means that person has a track record of experience and skills which encompass gaming. That person is able to talk to devs at a peer-to-peer level, understand the project, the process, the tools etc. This issue is precisely how Web3 ended up with so many failed gaming ventures - failures which eclipse even the failures of trad gaming as a whole. And all because most Web3 BD people have zero or near zero actual gaming or game dev experience.

Another peeve. The Gaming Catalyst website isn't reflective of the aspirations - and not even in a funny ha-ha kind of way. Go look at it. An $85M fund with copious amounts of disposable cash, paid for what doesn't appear to look like a game-centric funding initiative.

My cursory observations:

• No mission statement (no, the two linked docs aren't that)
• Nothing that even remotely says "Oy! We're totally attracting the cream of the gaming crop"
• Literally NO information about WTAF the GCP is. What it does have are the usual talking point fluff words that are rife in Web3 because apparently we're all idiots now who don't read anything
• No links back to this discussion forum which contains a lot more data/info on GCP than a barebones website
• Not a single - not one - image, link or ref that says "This is about gaming! Go call mom!".
• No links to pertinent program data such as the transparency report
• No team links, bios, expertise, tasking etc. Which goes back to the same transparency issues that all have been complaining about for months now. An $85M fund operating in the shadows with no "point man" (no - that's not Djinn) is absolutely why everyone should be asking the questions now being posed. NOTE: This was Jan 13th when someone else asked.

To me, that website doesn't say "We're totally serious about gaming!".

Let me rewind a bit. How did the GCP program lose someone like Andrew Green? NOTE: While I know how/when/why this happened, being old school I have always respected the boundaries of confidentiality. And so, my original comment wasn't designed to point the finger at the GCP as being responsible for his departure nor to delve into anything that would cause me to divulge private & confidential material. All that I can say to this - in the interest of clarity for those inquiring - is that Karel leaving and then Andrew - who he nominated - later following him to that venture, made sense. Especially since the GCP was obviously not up and running, and its scope and premise likely didn't fit with what Karel envisioned for his platform. It happens

Read the entire GCP update thread, then accept this challenge: List the names, bios, and GCP tasking for everyone associated with the program. No cheating.

It's not on the website or in this forum. But it's in the transparency report which, at a glance, still appears to be incomplete.

From what I've observed, most questions asked of the GCP receive a resounding "Yes". Then mostly nothing happens which is what leads to all the calls for transparency and such.

Thus far, the DAO hasn't gained anything by way of funding the GCP. There have been far too many issues - all of which go back to my original points: they're seemingly over their heads because setting up something like this is no small feat.

And when it comes to DAOs, they tend to [consistently] fail because most people would never support the idea that voting on important and financially material things should be down to the size of your bags rather than the merits of the proposal. Even in corporations, the number of shares held tend not to have any material effect on the number of votes which can be used.

The GCP has a rumored "66" deals in the pipeline, yet still there hasn't been a single - not one - announcement about any deal, team, product, project or even the tooth fairy. And no list. I can almost guarantee that if/when that list is ever made public, that there would be even more questions and arguments because all involved would have their own opinions about what is a good or bad deal. That despite the fact that the success and failure of a project - as we all know - has very little to do with the team or the project, but more to do with the PMF. And timing. And luck. That's why even the best and well-funded teams with the best products continue to fail. Especially in gaming. Mostly in Web3.

Not to mention that, despite the intent and best efforts, the first transparency report isn't all that transparent because to me it just reads like pages of words and phrases on a road to: "Thus far we haven't achieved much anything impactful".

I challenge anyone to change my mind. I'm the guy who writes design docs, technical specs, engineering frameworks - and manages teams of engineers who, more than anything else, hate documenting anything and will avoid it like the plague if they could. And so, it is easy for me to decipher what constitutes an informative data-driven report. Yes - of course anyone of us can ping Djinn or Chris about anything, and immediately get a response. But why go through all that trouble when most of the inquiries are better served in either an FAQ (e.g. on the website) or in such a report? Plus, it saves time while reducing drama.

When gaming teams can go deploy on other chains - including ARB - without having to wait around for months on end to get an answer let alone funding for their project, guess what happens when word gets around. Serious teams don't have time to wait around or wade through a convoluted process when they have projects to build and require the funding to do so.

While I still support the idea of the GCP - as I always have - I can no longer support it in it's current form because, on-going [gaming] trends aside, I have come to believe that the odds of success aren't currently in its favor.

Giving money to the deserving few shouldn't be a challenge. But for too long and too often, Web3 has routinely funded the wrong teams. And so, Web3 needs to stop rewarding failure after failure because the end result is that programs like GCP will not only find it challenging to curate worthy projects and teams but will also have an uphill battle in achieving success. Gaming is hard. Very hard. And that's why gaming routinely requires specialist handling and expertise for any team and/or project to break out, let alone be a success.

At this point, my recommendation is for the GCP to wind down and let the ARB Foundation put those funds into gaming via already established processes and procedures which are doing a lot better and have thus far served the ARB [gaming] community (I'm not in it and I don't hold any tokens) in more ways that one. Why mess with what already works? Why take the risk and the additional costs to setup a new fund when - as most of us said from the start - it could have been done within the scope of pre-existing ARB programs? Though the foundation doles out game funding in grants and not investments, I don't think it would have taken a year for them to retro-fit that program with an investment option. To be honest, having followed GCP from the start, never in my wildest dreams did I think that over a year later not only would there not be a single funded project but also not a single word about the curation of said projects. To the extent that most of us just moved on to other chains, similar to what Treasure ended up doing.

Djinn, Karel and co had a dream, and Djinn has done his utmost, put his best foot forward and stuck to what he wanted to build as per his vision. But in a world where even the best laid plans of mice and men tend to fall apart at first contact with reality, the unfortunate result is one of timing and opportunity.

To try and to fail is no disgrace. What matters is whether or not you are brave enough to get up and do it again - differently. I would know. I've been there, done that - got the scars and the derision that comes with the territory.

Since this is really up to the voting whales, if the GCP is to continue - I feel that radical changes need to be made. What those are, I don't know because most of what's done and pending still need clarity in order for outsiders like us to make an informed determination.

With any such radical changes, Djinn, alongside his stellar cohort, Rick, can then build an operating team of full-time people who have GAMING AND GAME DEV EXPERIENCE.

I also feel that there is no need for a council because despite best intentions imo it's really just there to give whale bags some degree of comfort while spending money with currently zero ROI. Too many cooks and all that.

Follow some - if not all - of the guidelines that I outlined before.

Put the whole GCP program on chain alongside a robust project in-take web form - complete with a counter showing the number of intake, the status, a brief description etc. But if that's going to be done, why not just roll it back into the pre-existing ARB grants program?

Anyway, the goal is to build a lean, mean GCP program, with complete transparency - and which operates in an efficient manner.

Seeing as it's gaming related, though it still stands a 90% chance of failure, all it takes is one or two hits to see a meaningful ROI. Then again, due to gaming and current game funding trends, that's just saying when the whales voted for an $85M (originally $200M) fund that's likely to lose 90% of its funding due to how gaming metrics tend to play out, they basically voted to set $76.5M on fire. They could very well have just bought $ARB and burned it. Same end result.

That is all. Please don't hate me.

ps....

• In the past three months alone, game studios and projects that raised over $300M in an avg of 14 months, have failed and shutdown. And the recent GDC - regardless of all the nonsense you see online by the usual larping suspects - is a wakeup call that says gaming will continue to decline and that Web3 gaming - for all intent and purposes - is on life support. Anyone who believes - even for a minute - that the general failure of trad gaming means those devs and projects are going to spill over to Web3 - is a fool.

• The Konvoy Q4/24 Gaming Report states that "Gaming VC Funding is down -47% QoQ" Their website PDF functionality is broken atm, but Game7 has a great synopsis.

• You should probably read InvestGames' Games Investment Review Q4 2024 Executive Summary Report and their 2025 Gaming Industry Report

Treasure DAO was a prominent early backer of the GCP, but it is not synonymous with Web3 gaming on Arbitrum. Its departure reflects a shift in its own roadmap—not the death knell of gaming on the chain.

Treasure DAO leaving is an opportunity to redefine Arbitrum’s gaming strategy—not abandon it. Leadership is about setting direction, not reacting to who stays or goes.

A resilient DAO invests in systems that outlast individual contributors. Perhaps an effort to fix what’s broken should be considered—without forfeiting the mission.

What do you consider to be "good feedback"? Isn't that subjective? So, that means, even if I re-posted it and removed the original joke that had it removed, it will likely suffer the same fate for an unrelated reason.

So, now what?

This rather salient point basically summarizes the overarching angst surrounding the GCP. In fact, it is precisely the impetus for my suggesting that we truly need someone at the top of the GCP who has the requisite experience in running a well-funded corp that's parked atop an $85M fund.

More importantly, while significant, that amount of money wouldn't even fund a AA team, let alone a AAA team. And so, what's the GCP target for these funds? Disclosing the "66" entities currently in the pipeline will - as you have aptly stated by way of your aforementioned request for clarity and transparency - go a long way to us being aware of what the targets are, what they hope to achieve and the targeted ROI for each.

As I said to Djinn yesterday, the GCP has - in my view - been constantly on the defensive simply because of the lack of transparency in some processes. All that does is provide ammo to dissenters and others who were opposed to this fund in the first place. While a GM and/or a CTO would go a long way towards handling the nuances of disclosures, the fact remains that such persons - if from the same pool of "web3 crypto bros and frens" are likely to simply seek to maintain the status quo while achieving nothing worthy of note let alone merit. To me that means the ARB Foundation needs to hire/appoint an external party to fill in this role, thus freeing up Djinn and Chris to manage other more pressing day to day ops, intake etc.

One last thing that seems to be missing (unless I missed) is that, AFAIK, every person in the GCP is moonlighting. That's bad in and of itself, though in the case of the council members, it's acceptable given that they're not involved in the day to day ops of the GCP. That said, there needs to be clarity into which parties are part-time, full-time, contractors, employees etc. Including third-party pass-through (aka "consultants") entities.

While there have been quite a bit of behind-the-scenes shenanigans which have hampered the GCP progress - and which the public isn't privy to - the fact remains that in order for the GCP to succeed, better policies and processes need to be implemented because, guess what? Any level of dysfunction is likely to ultimately spill over into the deal making process and likely lead to deals that may not yield the expected results. This being Web3 and all, this danger and it's prerequisite premise is always clear and present.

While I would like to see the GCP succeed, the end will never justify the means if the end result is a level of failure which could have very well been mitigated, minimized or otherwise prevented.

This rather salient point basically summarizes the overarching angst surrounding the GCP. In fact, it is precisely the impetus for my suggesting that we truly need someone at the top of the GCP who has the requisite experience in running a well-funded corp that's parked atop an $85M fund.

More importantly, while significant, that amount of money wouldn't even fund a AA team, let alone a AAA team. And so, what's the GCP target for these funds? Disclosing the "66" entities currently in the pipeline will - as you have aptly stated by way of your aforementioned request for clarity and transparency - go a long way to us being aware of what the targets are, what they hope to achieve and the targeted ROI for each.

As I said to Djinn yesterday, the GCP has - in my view - been constantly on the defensive simply because of the lack of transparency in some processes. All that does is provide ammo to dissenters and others who were opposed to this fund in the first place. While a GM and/or a CTO would go a long way towards handling the nuances of disclosures, the fact remains that such persons - if from the same pool of "web3 crypto bros and frens" are likely to simply seek to maintain the status quo while achieving nothing worthy of note let alone merit. To me that means the ARB Foundation needs to hire/appoint an external party to fill in this role, thus freeing up Djinn and Chris to manage other more pressing day to day ops, intake etc.

One last thing that seems to be missing (unless I missed) is that, AFAIK, every person in the GCP is moonlighting. That's bad in and of itself, though in the case of the council members, it's acceptable given that they're not involved in the day to day ops of the GCP. That said, there needs to be clarity into which parties are part-time, full-time, contractors, employees etc. Including third-party pass-through (aka "consultants") entities.

While there have been quite a bit of behind-the-scenes shenanigans which have hampered the GCP progress - and which the public isn't privy to - the fact remains that in order for the GCP to succeed, better policies and processes need to be implemented because, guess what? Any level of dysfunction is likely to ultimately spill over into the deal making process and likely lead to deals that may not yield the expected results. This being Web3 and all, this danger and it's prerequisite premise is always clear and present.

While I would like to see the GCP succeed, the end will never justify the means if the end result is a level of failure which could have very well been mitigated, minimized or otherwise prevented.

This comment really reflects what is wrong with the GCP in its current state and why changes need to happen and not only transparency reports, which are at least a good thing.

The main problem is, as stated, that the GCP was announced in a time where the whole ecosystem was really growing and a lot was happening, also in terms of gaming.

But now after more than a year its completely different. Things have changed and we need to reasses this proposal. Need to see if some goals from the original proposal need to be removed, revised or something different added.

And on a personal note, so far I have not seen anything interesting regarding gaming personally. The games at the GDC have been underwhelming from what Ive heard and the DAO needs to think if these funds can be put at use better somehow.

This comment really reflects what is wrong with the GCP in its current state and why changes need to happen and not only transparency reports, which are at least a good thing.

The main problem is, as stated, that the GCP was announced in a time where the whole ecosystem was really growing and a lot was happening, also in terms of gaming.

But now after more than a year its completely different. Things have changed and we need to reasses this proposal. Need to see if some goals from the original proposal need to be removed, revised or something different added.

And on a personal note, so far I have not seen anything interesting regarding gaming personally. The games at the GDC have been underwhelming from what Ive heard and the DAO needs to think if these funds can be put at use better somehow.

Cross-posting the GCP Strategic Update (March 2025) here for all those following this thread.

We encourage everyone to follow the link and digest the full update.

Cross-posting the GCP Strategic Update (March 2025) here for all those following this thread.

We encourage everyone to follow the link and digest the full update.

We don't know the poster and don't know who in the admin suite is replying, but why don't you just redact the specific sentence you took issue with? It was a fairly lengthy post.