After discussing with several community members, one of the things we want to add to the post is using this proposal as a first step in creating a developer grant framework. Our team will begin drafting the document and put forward that proposal. We would like to use some of the structure and learnings from the ITD Machinata proposal for the general framework.
One example (not necessarily one we will use) - dev grant proposals must require a doxxed team + some demo video/build with assets to show the vision for the product.
Thank you to @thedevanshmehta for the good discussion and his 🪓! 🙂
The ITD team will begin drafting the document. There is no expectation of compensation. If the DAO likes and passes the proposal, the community can decide whether to award ITD an additional amount of ARB that we can use for the development of the game and more assets!
Please show your support on snapshot!
Thank you to @Frisson for helping push this to snapshot for a temp check!
Arbitrum DAO - Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Funding for Into the Dungeons: Machinata - a PvP Digital Miniature Game V2 https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x07a26cd6b78a41745aab04190f22e97fdf9432f564651d0c4da0f8d0827888a6
This is a revised version of the initial proposal put forth to the DAO that can be found here.
We have a lot to say about Into the Dungeons, a world we’ve been building for over 2 years, however, in the interest of preserving the DAO’s and delegates’ time this summary will aim to provide a concise overview of:
Please ask questions. The goal of this post is to be direct and on point. Happy to share more details with whomever is curious, but wanted this post to be easy to follow.
Machinata is a 2 player turn based tactics digital miniature game where each player creates a 9 card deck consisting of units, buildings and spells. Each player then utilizes their deck to capture the opponent’s base.
Machinata is designed to have short to medium session-based gameplay that lends itself to competitive gaming. This would be the first competitive e-sport like title in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We want to launch a playable version of Machinata during the 2nd half of 2024.
We are asking the DAO for 60,000 $ARB up front as a first tranche, and 180,000 $ARB in total. The rest of the 120,000 $ARB would be paid out in two tranches, 60,000 $ARB each.
1. First tranche of 60,000 $ARB to enable us to deliver the following:
| Deliverable | Description |
|---|---|
| Into the Dungeons Branding, Website, and Marketplace Pt.1 – BRANDING AND DESIGN | The ITD universe is expansive and will be much more than just one game. It will all live on Arbitrum. We are aiming for a site at the level of KPR and have already had calls with the design agency that made the site. The Marketplace is our first product – one where people will come to buy and sell their miniatures and so it needs to make an amazing impact. |
| Progress on Base Miniature Deck Pt.1 – 7 ADDITIONAL CARDS | We currently have 5 cards completed and will be able to complete the rest of the cards with the funding. Each milestone will include delivery of 7 cards. |
| UPDATED UNREAL ENGINE PROTOTYPE WITH 12 CARDS | The existing prototype has 4 cards integrated. We will integrate an additional 8 cards and release 2 small teaser scenarios for marketing purposes on our website that will be playable for free. The DAO is welcome to try the full build at the time. |
2. After the milestones above have been met and confirmed by the DAO, we would ask for the next tranche of 60,000 $ARB which will enable us to meet the following milestones:
| Deliverable | Description |
|---|---|
| Into the Dungeons Branding, Website, and Marketplace Pt.2 – RELEASE OF MARKETPLACE | This second tranche will enable us to work with the design agency and release the completed website that will not only serve as an entry point to the ITD universe but will also include our first completed product – the Marketplace. The Marketplace is where players will be able to purchase the Base Pack, Expansion, or Single Miniatures. The Marketplace is also a key part of the sustainability of the game. By allowing community members to submit their designs/variants of Miniatures or completely new units, we will be enabling a creator economy that will generate revenue for artists, creators, and Machinata. |
| Progress on Base Miniature Deck Pt.2 – 7 additional cards completed | By the end of this milestone, we will have 19 cards completed. |
| Smart Contracts | We will complete smart contracts for: 1. Minting miniatures (on behalf of the community creator, if a design is accepted) with their wallet receiving 70% of the proceeds and Machinata receiving 30% of the proceeds for each unit bought/sold. 2. Since miniatures are collectables, we want to enable collectors to trade them freely without paying us a percentage fee. However, if a miniature is traded to a player OTC, then to use it in the game, the player must register it with us by paying a small activation fee. 3. Match History to be written on chain. |
3. The final tranche of 60,000 $ARB will enable us to:
| Deliverable | Description |
|---|---|
| Begin Crowd sale of Base Game set (27 cards) + 1 PFP | With the previous two milestones completed, the last tranche will predominantly be used for launching our collection which will have an actual game tied to it! We are currently contemplating 7777 packs with a percentage reserved for the Arbitrum community – See next section |
| Initial Marketing and Partnerships | A lot of marketing and partnership money will be coming from the actual crowd sale as that will be key to making an impact in the Web3 space and bringing more users into the Arbitrum community to play Machinata and all the other cool games the community has been and will continue to build! |
This funding released over three tranches will allow us to speed up development and raise the rest of the capital required for longer term growth of the game that will include some features such as:
We know asking for 60,000 $ARB upfront is a risk for the DAO, but here is why we think it is worth it.
We have a playable prototype – footage from in-engine (Unreal Engine) gameplay can be seen below (we embedded a webp file so you don't have to click and open anything. The resolution suffers as a result 😊):
We are making a high-quality digital miniature game that has been self-funded so far. Each miniature has an illustration, which is turned into a card and 5 animated pixel art sprites – some of these sprites can be seen below:
Frost Knight
[grid]
[/grid]
[grid]
[/grid]
Night Walker
[grid]
[/grid]
The digital miniature model is not something that has been done yet in Web3. Games Workshop, the company behind Warhammer40K is currently valued at 4.15B USD. The concept of collectable digital miniatures with different editions, enabling artists to create variants and create a community powered economy is something that fits in very with NFT technology.
We are also creating some Arbitrum specific variants of miniatures. One example you can see below is the Soul Thief MUX variant placed alongside the Soul Thief Original Character.
We recognize that Arbitrum has a large and thriving De-Fi community and we want to involve and reward (even if it is a subset of) them for being a part of the ecosystem.
[grid]
[grid]
[/grid]
[grid]
[/grid]
[grid]
[/grid]
[grid]
[/grid]
[/grid]
A portion of the total supply (total supply will be 7777 1st edition packs, but the portion is TBD, likely 777 packs for the community) will be distributed to the Arbitrum community for free as a thank you for helping us build the game. We would like to work with the Arbitrum community via the DAO to figure out a fair distribution mechanism when we reach that point.
Machinata’s success is Arbitrum’s success as the network will see more users come onboard and more transactions. Most importantly, a very high quality IP, native to Web3, native to Arbitrum.
Thank you,
Zehra & Ali Forgotten Machine
After discussing with several community members, one of the things we want to add to the post is using this proposal as a first step in creating a developer grant framework. Our team will begin drafting the document and put forward that proposal. We would like to use some of the structure and learnings from the ITD Machinata proposal for the general framework.
One example (not necessarily one we will use) - dev grant proposals must require a doxxed team + some demo video/build with assets to show the vision for the product.
Thank you to @thedevanshmehta for the good discussion and his 🪓! 🙂
The ITD team will begin drafting the document. There is no expectation of compensation. If the DAO likes and passes the proposal, the community can decide whether to award ITD an additional amount of ARB that we can use for the development of the game and more assets!
Please show your support on snapshot!
Thank you to @Frisson for helping push this to snapshot for a temp check!
Arbitrum DAO - Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Funding for Into the Dungeons: Machinata - a PvP Digital Miniature Game V2 https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x07a26cd6b78a41745aab04190f22e97fdf9432f564651d0c4da0f8d0827888a6
This is a revised version of the initial proposal put forth to the DAO that can be found here.
We have a lot to say about Into the Dungeons, a world we’ve been building for over 2 years, however, in the interest of preserving the DAO’s and delegates’ time this summary will aim to provide a concise overview of:
Please ask questions. The goal of this post is to be direct and on point. Happy to share more details with whomever is curious, but wanted this post to be easy to follow.
Machinata is a 2 player turn based tactics digital miniature game where each player creates a 9 card deck consisting of units, buildings and spells. Each player then utilizes their deck to capture the opponent’s base.
Machinata is designed to have short to medium session-based gameplay that lends itself to competitive gaming. This would be the first competitive e-sport like title in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We want to launch a playable version of Machinata during the 2nd half of 2024.
We are asking the DAO for 60,000 $ARB up front as a first tranche, and 180,000 $ARB in total. The rest of the 120,000 $ARB would be paid out in two tranches, 60,000 $ARB each.
1. First tranche of 60,000 $ARB to enable us to deliver the following:
| Deliverable | Description |
|---|---|
| Into the Dungeons Branding, Website, and Marketplace Pt.1 – BRANDING AND DESIGN | The ITD universe is expansive and will be much more than just one game. It will all live on Arbitrum. We are aiming for a site at the level of KPR and have already had calls with the design agency that made the site. The Marketplace is our first product – one where people will come to buy and sell their miniatures and so it needs to make an amazing impact. |
| Progress on Base Miniature Deck Pt.1 – 7 ADDITIONAL CARDS | We currently have 5 cards completed and will be able to complete the rest of the cards with the funding. Each milestone will include delivery of 7 cards. |
| UPDATED UNREAL ENGINE PROTOTYPE WITH 12 CARDS | The existing prototype has 4 cards integrated. We will integrate an additional 8 cards and release 2 small teaser scenarios for marketing purposes on our website that will be playable for free. The DAO is welcome to try the full build at the time. |
2. After the milestones above have been met and confirmed by the DAO, we would ask for the next tranche of 60,000 $ARB which will enable us to meet the following milestones:
| Deliverable | Description |
|---|---|
| Into the Dungeons Branding, Website, and Marketplace Pt.2 – RELEASE OF MARKETPLACE | This second tranche will enable us to work with the design agency and release the completed website that will not only serve as an entry point to the ITD universe but will also include our first completed product – the Marketplace. The Marketplace is where players will be able to purchase the Base Pack, Expansion, or Single Miniatures. The Marketplace is also a key part of the sustainability of the game. By allowing community members to submit their designs/variants of Miniatures or completely new units, we will be enabling a creator economy that will generate revenue for artists, creators, and Machinata. |
| Progress on Base Miniature Deck Pt.2 – 7 additional cards completed | By the end of this milestone, we will have 19 cards completed. |
| Smart Contracts | We will complete smart contracts for: 1. Minting miniatures (on behalf of the community creator, if a design is accepted) with their wallet receiving 70% of the proceeds and Machinata receiving 30% of the proceeds for each unit bought/sold. 2. Since miniatures are collectables, we want to enable collectors to trade them freely without paying us a percentage fee. However, if a miniature is traded to a player OTC, then to use it in the game, the player must register it with us by paying a small activation fee. 3. Match History to be written on chain. |
3. The final tranche of 60,000 $ARB will enable us to:
| Deliverable | Description |
|---|---|
| Begin Crowd sale of Base Game set (27 cards) + 1 PFP | With the previous two milestones completed, the last tranche will predominantly be used for launching our collection which will have an actual game tied to it! We are currently contemplating 7777 packs with a percentage reserved for the Arbitrum community – See next section |
| Initial Marketing and Partnerships | A lot of marketing and partnership money will be coming from the actual crowd sale as that will be key to making an impact in the Web3 space and bringing more users into the Arbitrum community to play Machinata and all the other cool games the community has been and will continue to build! |
This funding released over three tranches will allow us to speed up development and raise the rest of the capital required for longer term growth of the game that will include some features such as:
We know asking for 60,000 $ARB upfront is a risk for the DAO, but here is why we think it is worth it.
We have a playable prototype – footage from in-engine (Unreal Engine) gameplay can be seen below (we embedded a webp file so you don't have to click and open anything. The resolution suffers as a result 😊):
We are making a high-quality digital miniature game that has been self-funded so far. Each miniature has an illustration, which is turned into a card and 5 animated pixel art sprites – some of these sprites can be seen below:
Frost Knight
[grid]
[/grid]
[grid]
[/grid]
Night Walker
[grid]
[/grid]
The digital miniature model is not something that has been done yet in Web3. Games Workshop, the company behind Warhammer40K is currently valued at 4.15B USD. The concept of collectable digital miniatures with different editions, enabling artists to create variants and create a community powered economy is something that fits in very with NFT technology.
We are also creating some Arbitrum specific variants of miniatures. One example you can see below is the Soul Thief MUX variant placed alongside the Soul Thief Original Character.
We recognize that Arbitrum has a large and thriving De-Fi community and we want to involve and reward (even if it is a subset of) them for being a part of the ecosystem.
[grid]
[grid]
[/grid]
[grid]
[/grid]
[grid]
[/grid]
[grid]
[/grid]
[/grid]
A portion of the total supply (total supply will be 7777 1st edition packs, but the portion is TBD, likely 777 packs for the community) will be distributed to the Arbitrum community for free as a thank you for helping us build the game. We would like to work with the Arbitrum community via the DAO to figure out a fair distribution mechanism when we reach that point.
Machinata’s success is Arbitrum’s success as the network will see more users come onboard and more transactions. Most importantly, a very high quality IP, native to Web3, native to Arbitrum.
Thank you,
Zehra & Ali Forgotten Machine
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-funding-for-into-the-dungeons-machinata-a-pvp-digital-miniature-game-v2/2102
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-funding-for-into-the-dungeons-machinata-a-pvp-digital-miniature-game-v2/2102
The link to our forum post is too long to paste - TL;DR we want to see this as part of the Developer Grant Framework that's being worked on
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-funding-for-into-the-dungeons-machinata-a-pvp-digital-miniature-game-v2/2102
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-funding-for-into-the-dungeons-machinata-a-pvp-digital-miniature-game-v2/2102
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/bobbay-delegate-communication-thread/20997/3
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-funding-for-into-the-dungeons-machinata-a-pvp-digital-miniature-game-v2/2102
Our comments were not taken into account, which was to get the work done at Arbitrum first. no plans to build this out of ARB.
This should be part of a larger ecosystem-wide grant program.
The link to our forum post is too long to paste - TL;DR we want to see this as part of the Developer Grant Framework that's being worked on
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-funding-for-into-the-dungeons-machinata-a-pvp-digital-miniature-game-v2/2102
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-funding-for-into-the-dungeons-machinata-a-pvp-digital-miniature-game-v2/2102
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/bobbay-delegate-communication-thread/20997/3
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-funding-for-into-the-dungeons-machinata-a-pvp-digital-miniature-game-v2/2102
Our comments were not taken into account, which was to get the work done at Arbitrum first. no plans to build this out of ARB.
This should be part of a larger ecosystem-wide grant program.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hey, Ali!
Love this proposal and shoutout @JoJo for bringing up that this opens up a larger can of worms around the currently un-filled niche of development grants funded through the DAO.
As the Gaming Domain Allocator for the Questbook Grants Program, I'd like to show my support for Ali and his game Machinata.
Hey, Ali!
Love this proposal and shoutout @JoJo for bringing up that this opens up a larger can of worms around the currently un-filled niche of development grants funded through the DAO.
As the Gaming Domain Allocator for the Questbook Grants Program, I'd like to show my support for Ali and his game Machinata.
Ali was the first founder to apply AFTER the Gaming Domain was fully allocated and as a result was not able to funded in the first round of Questbook grants.
I believe Machinata would do well in the web3 gaming market and the smart way in which this proposal is structured is heavily aligned with the DAO.
I just wanted to add my 2 cents here in the forum and let the delegates know I support this proposal even through regrettably it was not able to be funded in time by the Questbook program.
Best,
Flook
I just read the revised proposal for Machinata and I'm genuinely impressed. The concept of a 2-player turn-based tactics game with a 9-card deck system is innovative and exciting. I appreciate the clear strategy behind the phased funding request and the deliverables, especially the development of the ITD universe and the marketplace.
It's great to see a project with such a thought-out plan for sustainable growth and community engagement. The fact that the team is doxxed and has a proven track record in the ecosystem adds credibility. I'm really hopeful that the DAO will see the potential here and provide the funding. Machinata could be a game-changer in the Arbitrum ecosystem and bring a lot of value to our community.
I like this proposal because it is well-thought out and meets a gaming use case. One comment would be the necessity to develop your own Marketplace vs using an established one such as Trove. Seems like the grant money would be better spent developing the art, the game, and marketing/incentives to attract players. I'd also ask the proposal to identify some metrics of success that would indicate such for the project! Best of luck...great start!
Love the concept for the game, collectibles as well as digital miniatures will appeal to a large section of gamers, web3 and traditional. The proposal looks well thought at and not asking for an unreasonable amount for this type of game. Clear milestones are great as well.
Side note - Ali (chaingamer.eth) is an excellent brain to have behind this, passionate as well as skilled at making his games. A great combination for backing.
What I love
Hey, Ali!
Love this proposal and shoutout @JoJo for bringing up that this opens up a larger can of worms around the currently un-filled niche of development grants funded through the DAO.
As the Gaming Domain Allocator for the Questbook Grants Program, I'd like to show my support for Ali and his game Machinata.
Hey, Ali!
Love this proposal and shoutout @JoJo for bringing up that this opens up a larger can of worms around the currently un-filled niche of development grants funded through the DAO.
As the Gaming Domain Allocator for the Questbook Grants Program, I'd like to show my support for Ali and his game Machinata.
Ali was the first founder to apply AFTER the Gaming Domain was fully allocated and as a result was not able to funded in the first round of Questbook grants.
I believe Machinata would do well in the web3 gaming market and the smart way in which this proposal is structured is heavily aligned with the DAO.
I just wanted to add my 2 cents here in the forum and let the delegates know I support this proposal even through regrettably it was not able to be funded in time by the Questbook program.
Best,
Flook
I just read the revised proposal for Machinata and I'm genuinely impressed. The concept of a 2-player turn-based tactics game with a 9-card deck system is innovative and exciting. I appreciate the clear strategy behind the phased funding request and the deliverables, especially the development of the ITD universe and the marketplace.
It's great to see a project with such a thought-out plan for sustainable growth and community engagement. The fact that the team is doxxed and has a proven track record in the ecosystem adds credibility. I'm really hopeful that the DAO will see the potential here and provide the funding. Machinata could be a game-changer in the Arbitrum ecosystem and bring a lot of value to our community.
I like this proposal because it is well-thought out and meets a gaming use case. One comment would be the necessity to develop your own Marketplace vs using an established one such as Trove. Seems like the grant money would be better spent developing the art, the game, and marketing/incentives to attract players. I'd also ask the proposal to identify some metrics of success that would indicate such for the project! Best of luck...great start!
Love the concept for the game, collectibles as well as digital miniatures will appeal to a large section of gamers, web3 and traditional. The proposal looks well thought at and not asking for an unreasonable amount for this type of game. Clear milestones are great as well.
Side note - Ali (chaingamer.eth) is an excellent brain to have behind this, passionate as well as skilled at making his games. A great combination for backing.
What I love
What I love
What I want to learn more about
I'd like to see a stronger on-chain connection. The marketplace and on-chain stats are table stakes for web3 games. Here are a few ideas
I'd like to learn more about your GTM. While its non-trivial to make a game, its also non-trivial to get users to play the game. There is a lot of things bidding for our attention in this space, how do you plan to get people to pay attention to Machinata?
I'd like to see some of this ARB allocated to incentivizing players/creators.
This could serve as a great opportunity for the gaming catalyst to experiment with some of its ideas.
What I love
What I want to learn more about
I'd like to see a stronger on-chain connection. The marketplace and on-chain stats are table stakes for web3 games. Here are a few ideas
I'd like to learn more about your GTM. While its non-trivial to make a game, its also non-trivial to get users to play the game. There is a lot of things bidding for our attention in this space, how do you plan to get people to pay attention to Machinata?
I'd like to see some of this ARB allocated to incentivizing players/creators.
This could serve as a great opportunity for the gaming catalyst to experiment with some of its ideas.
Great work putting this together @thechaingamer.eth but DAOStewards voted against this proposal.
The concept is rock solid, love your energy here as well but we don't see this request going through the DAO as the best way to go at this time.
Great work putting this together @thechaingamer.eth but DAOStewards voted against this proposal.
The concept is rock solid, love your energy here as well but we don't see this request going through the DAO as the best way to go at this time.
Yes, some work needs to be done to get projects like this off the ground more readily but supporting this one-off grant might open the floodgates for other projects to come to try something similar.
We would definitely love to see this funded through other means.
Fantastic feedback! Thank you for taking the time to share all this.
We're going to start working on the developer grant framework. We need a lot of quality apps on arbitrum!
On the Machinata side, we'll share more indepth plans for how we propose to build something as expansive as Parallel, FRWC, etc., scale the team and create a vibrant ecosystem of players and creators.
Fantastic feedback! Thank you for taking the time to share all this.
We're going to start working on the developer grant framework. We need a lot of quality apps on arbitrum!
On the Machinata side, we'll share more indepth plans for how we propose to build something as expansive as Parallel, FRWC, etc., scale the team and create a vibrant ecosystem of players and creators.
As far as the marketplace for minis goes, that's definitely something I want us to utilize Treasure for and that might just be the kind of tooling we can start building that will benefit everyone making games. As well as making sure the wallet connection experience is either painless or abstracted away. The same goes for transactions.
Thanks again for the feedback, ser! Much appreciated and we will continue to BUIDL and improve!
I haven't done a deep dive or anything into the results of the pgoram, but generally speaking I would be in favor of renewing the Questbook program now that the funds have been depleted.
Disclosure: the submitter of this proposal, Ali (thechaingamer.eth), is an ARC member who recused himself from the rest of the ARC’s assessment. Ali was not involved in any discussions pertaining to this proposal.
In its current form, Treasure DAO’s Arbitrum Council (ARC) has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
Additionally, we absolutely intend to work on a developer grant framework because we need killer apps! Will share more on that soon.
Thank you
Thanks for the feedback @Bob-Rossi!
Curious to hear your thoughts on the following. @Griff @Plutus and yourself have all mentioned the same thing re. getting this funded through questbook.
Also, and correct me if I mistaken, but the amount seems reasonable as well.
Thanks for the feedback @Bob-Rossi!
Curious to hear your thoughts on the following. @Griff @Plutus and yourself have all mentioned the same thing re. getting this funded through questbook.
Also, and correct me if I mistaken, but the amount seems reasonable as well.
Would there be any opposition from a delegate perspective in allowing questbook to having several tiers of funding? 25, 50, 100, 200k ARB? I know the previous version was limited to 25k USD. CC: @Flook
Thank you.
Thank you thank you @karelvuong for elaborating on your thoughts. I can't help but agree with your points.
Here's why I voted against this proposal:
Thank you thank you @karelvuong for elaborating on your thoughts. I can't help but agree with your points.
Here's why I voted against this proposal:
Every early-stage project should be obsessed with finding product-market fit. In the case of games, this means a core of enthusiastic players retained without extra incentives. The current KPIs, including "the 7000 packs to mint, and 777 packs for Arb ecosystem users as giveaways," focus on outputs that do not drive towards that objective. If I were funding a new company with my money, I would prefer to see resources concentrated there.
Without showing early signals of initial adoption / interest or having a strong core base of players (“100 true fans”), it is not clear if creating new cards/decks or standing up a better, well designed brand identity will lead to greater engagement or retention for the game.
Without these details, it is difficult to assess the path to not only developing a great game but also bringing it to market while tackling the cold start problem at the same time to bootstrap a strong economy and a landscape that can truly enable competitive play.
I support the changes suggested below and would reinforce them with the launch of a basic MVP. This approach should not only apply to this proposal but to any gaming framework. I am 100% in support of funding new games and bootstrapping initiatives. However, let's be realistic: marketplaces and various tools are becoming commoditized. The early version of any product should leverage these tools and focus on creating an excellent gaming experience.
Adjusting Milestones - Change the first tranche’s first deliverable to be focused on the ITD branding, website, and initial product delivery (taking it out of the second tranche). For the second tranche’s first deliverable, adjust this to be focused on developing the UGC engine / tool.
The Princeton Blockchain Club will be voting against this proposal at this time.
Although we appreciate the efforts by @thechaingamer.eth and the Machinata team (and think the sprites look pretty sick tbh), we would prefer to see this as part of a grant framework (as mentioned in the post).
The Princeton Blockchain Club will be voting against this proposal at this time.
Although we appreciate the efforts by @thechaingamer.eth and the Machinata team (and think the sprites look pretty sick tbh), we would prefer to see this as part of a grant framework (as mentioned in the post).
We've seen what's being cooked up with the Developer Grant Framework, and are excited to see where that leads! Hope to see some fun Web3 games on Arbitrum soon.
I'm voting for this proposal at the temp check stage because I think it's generally reasonable, like that the team is Arbitrum-native, and want the DAO to start investing in gaming. With that said, I would need more information and perhaps more discussion before voting for it onchain. I would want to start with just the first tranche, and potentially would want to see the first tranche have a lower amount in USD notional terms.
Great work putting this together @thechaingamer.eth but DAOStewards voted against this proposal.
The concept is rock solid, love your energy here as well but we don't see this request going through the DAO as the best way to go at this time.
Great work putting this together @thechaingamer.eth but DAOStewards voted against this proposal.
The concept is rock solid, love your energy here as well but we don't see this request going through the DAO as the best way to go at this time.
Yes, some work needs to be done to get projects like this off the ground more readily but supporting this one-off grant might open the floodgates for other projects to come to try something similar.
We would definitely love to see this funded through other means.
Fantastic feedback! Thank you for taking the time to share all this.
We're going to start working on the developer grant framework. We need a lot of quality apps on arbitrum!
On the Machinata side, we'll share more indepth plans for how we propose to build something as expansive as Parallel, FRWC, etc., scale the team and create a vibrant ecosystem of players and creators.
Fantastic feedback! Thank you for taking the time to share all this.
We're going to start working on the developer grant framework. We need a lot of quality apps on arbitrum!
On the Machinata side, we'll share more indepth plans for how we propose to build something as expansive as Parallel, FRWC, etc., scale the team and create a vibrant ecosystem of players and creators.
As far as the marketplace for minis goes, that's definitely something I want us to utilize Treasure for and that might just be the kind of tooling we can start building that will benefit everyone making games. As well as making sure the wallet connection experience is either painless or abstracted away. The same goes for transactions.
Thanks again for the feedback, ser! Much appreciated and we will continue to BUIDL and improve!
I haven't done a deep dive or anything into the results of the pgoram, but generally speaking I would be in favor of renewing the Questbook program now that the funds have been depleted.
Disclosure: the submitter of this proposal, Ali (thechaingamer.eth), is an ARC member who recused himself from the rest of the ARC’s assessment. Ali was not involved in any discussions pertaining to this proposal.
In its current form, Treasure DAO’s Arbitrum Council (ARC) has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
Additionally, we absolutely intend to work on a developer grant framework because we need killer apps! Will share more on that soon.
Thank you
Thanks for the feedback @Bob-Rossi!
Curious to hear your thoughts on the following. @Griff @Plutus and yourself have all mentioned the same thing re. getting this funded through questbook.
Also, and correct me if I mistaken, but the amount seems reasonable as well.
Thanks for the feedback @Bob-Rossi!
Curious to hear your thoughts on the following. @Griff @Plutus and yourself have all mentioned the same thing re. getting this funded through questbook.
Also, and correct me if I mistaken, but the amount seems reasonable as well.
Would there be any opposition from a delegate perspective in allowing questbook to having several tiers of funding? 25, 50, 100, 200k ARB? I know the previous version was limited to 25k USD. CC: @Flook
Thank you.
Thank you thank you @karelvuong for elaborating on your thoughts. I can't help but agree with your points.
Here's why I voted against this proposal:
Thank you thank you @karelvuong for elaborating on your thoughts. I can't help but agree with your points.
Here's why I voted against this proposal:
Every early-stage project should be obsessed with finding product-market fit. In the case of games, this means a core of enthusiastic players retained without extra incentives. The current KPIs, including "the 7000 packs to mint, and 777 packs for Arb ecosystem users as giveaways," focus on outputs that do not drive towards that objective. If I were funding a new company with my money, I would prefer to see resources concentrated there.
Without showing early signals of initial adoption / interest or having a strong core base of players (“100 true fans”), it is not clear if creating new cards/decks or standing up a better, well designed brand identity will lead to greater engagement or retention for the game.
Without these details, it is difficult to assess the path to not only developing a great game but also bringing it to market while tackling the cold start problem at the same time to bootstrap a strong economy and a landscape that can truly enable competitive play.
I support the changes suggested below and would reinforce them with the launch of a basic MVP. This approach should not only apply to this proposal but to any gaming framework. I am 100% in support of funding new games and bootstrapping initiatives. However, let's be realistic: marketplaces and various tools are becoming commoditized. The early version of any product should leverage these tools and focus on creating an excellent gaming experience.
Adjusting Milestones - Change the first tranche’s first deliverable to be focused on the ITD branding, website, and initial product delivery (taking it out of the second tranche). For the second tranche’s first deliverable, adjust this to be focused on developing the UGC engine / tool.
The Princeton Blockchain Club will be voting against this proposal at this time.
Although we appreciate the efforts by @thechaingamer.eth and the Machinata team (and think the sprites look pretty sick tbh), we would prefer to see this as part of a grant framework (as mentioned in the post).
The Princeton Blockchain Club will be voting against this proposal at this time.
Although we appreciate the efforts by @thechaingamer.eth and the Machinata team (and think the sprites look pretty sick tbh), we would prefer to see this as part of a grant framework (as mentioned in the post).
We've seen what's being cooked up with the Developer Grant Framework, and are excited to see where that leads! Hope to see some fun Web3 games on Arbitrum soon.
I'm voting for this proposal at the temp check stage because I think it's generally reasonable, like that the team is Arbitrum-native, and want the DAO to start investing in gaming. With that said, I would need more information and perhaps more discussion before voting for it onchain. I would want to start with just the first tranche, and potentially would want to see the first tranche have a lower amount in USD notional terms.
Disclosure: the submitter of this proposal, Ali (thechaingamer.eth), is an ARC member who recused himself from the rest of the ARC’s assessment. Ali was not involved in any discussions pertaining to this proposal.
In its current form, Treasure DAO’s Arbitrum Council (ARC) has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
At the same time, we encourage Ali to consider resubmitting after suggested revisions are digested and made to, or at a later date as new forthcoming grant frameworks are established (ie. the Gaming Catalyst Program or the Developer Grant Framework).
For background, Treasure and its ARC members on an individual basis have been outspoken on our collective desire to see more funding, incentives, and support flow through to gaming projects building upon Arbitrum. We firmly stand by this and believe this to be important for the continued growth and success of Arbitrum’s gaming landscape and more broadly within web3.
We also would like to highlight the background context in which Ali submitted this proposal in an attempt to mobilize the DAO to consider and provide developer grants to support gaming projects submitting proposals outside of frameworks which, to date, have been more catered towards DeFi projects as it pertains to acceptance criteria and distribution methods, or generally insufficiently funded (in the case of Questbook as an example).
We applaud Ali’s efforts to get the ball rolling as we see a massive opportunity for the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem to improve the accessibility to funding and support considering the sizable DAO treasury. This has led Treasure to co-author, contribute, and input into the new Gaming Catalyst Program which we hope to see brought to the Arbitrum DAO governance forum in the coming days / week.
The ARC had originally considered voting FOR the Snapshot vote to progress to Tally given our general support for this effort but we believed that the changes we would like to see listed below are substantive enough to warrant modifications to the proposal that should provide additional color and context which may give rise to deeper forum discussion. Our feeling is delegates and voters on the proposal should be privy to these details which will help further inform their decision making and, as such, led us to voting AGAINST at this stage.
What we like:
Improvements we would like to see:
Finally, we wanted to reiterate that we would like to see a resubmission of this ITD proposal to the Arbitrum DAO and community – whether it is as is as an independent proposal or through one of the forthcoming grant frameworks, including the Gaming Catalyst Grant that we are in the midst of working to help establish.
It is unfortunate Questbook's Gaming Domain has run out of funds. However, I'd prefer to see this type of thing funded through Questbook (or a similar framework) in order to keep a fair playing field for all projects pursuing this. Hopefully another round of funding can be agreed to for a future application.
I will be voting "Against" this proposal. While I understand we lose some nimbleness by going the framework route, I think long-term the positives from this type of solution outweighs the short-term negatives.
It is unfortunate Questbook's Gaming Domain has run out of funds. However, I'd prefer to see this type of thing funded through Questbook (or a similar framework) in order to keep a fair playing field for all projects pursuing this. Hopefully another round of funding can be agreed to for a future application.
I will be voting "Against" this proposal. While I understand we lose some nimbleness by going the framework route, I think long-term the positives from this type of solution outweighs the short-term negatives.
I will encourage that the work on the developer grant framework continue, as it sounds like something that can be useful to the DAO. Assuming a reasonable presentation, I would likely vote in support of something like that. I'll add, while I understand the thought that using this grant to as a stepping stone towards a comprehensive developer grant framework, I'm not sure I agree this is the best method. We already should have some data from Questbook's Gaming Domain, as well as the numerous other grant frameworks over the last year. So I'm not sure what can really be gained with that method.
Appreciate it @maxlomu - agree with all this and if you see the comments the idea was to make a bunch of changes that would move towards:
We'll be making revisions to this proposal.
Appreciate it @maxlomu - agree with all this and if you see the comments the idea was to make a bunch of changes that would move towards:
We'll be making revisions to this proposal.
Unfortunately, it seems like the DAO doesn't have much appetite for doing anything outside a framework. It doesn't look like that is going to be changing anytime soon. So we will continue to build and see where it goes.
Thanks.
I really sympathize with your situation @thechaingamer.eth … I am confident there is a path forward for funding for your work… IT IS EPIC but I don’t think a DAO vote is the right path. After the vote passes who is supposed to manage these tranches?
I really sympathize with your situation @thechaingamer.eth … I am confident there is a path forward for funding for your work… IT IS EPIC but I don’t think a DAO vote is the right path. After the vote passes who is supposed to manage these tranches?
No worries, @Griff. All good.
Idea was for the progress on milestones to be very transparently shared here on the forums. Burden of proof (in terms of work performed and how it measures up against the milestones) would be on the Machinata team.
A simple yay or nay vote on "do we release the next 60K arb". Nothing is simple in a DAO though :)
While we understand the argument that we should approach such a proposal with a ‘create a framework’ mindset, we do not like the notion of hindering the ability of the DAO to move forward until such a framework is in place. We should let builders focus on building and have other contributors work on a framework in the meantime.
While we understand the argument that we should approach such a proposal with a ‘create a framework’ mindset, we do not like the notion of hindering the ability of the DAO to move forward until such a framework is in place. We should let builders focus on building and have other contributors work on a framework in the meantime.
Thank you for your time, thoughtful feedback and support. It is much appreciated, ser! :heart: :saluting_face:
This is all VERY reasonable, but I really can't support 1-off grant proposals... The overhead is too much for our DAO IMO, even with a promise of a future framework.
I really sympathize with your situation @thechaingamer.eth ... I am confident there is a path forward for funding for your work... IT IS EPIC but I don't think a DAO vote is the right path. After the vote passes who is supposed to manage these tranches?
This is all VERY reasonable, but I really can't support 1-off grant proposals... The overhead is too much for our DAO IMO, even with a promise of a future framework.
I really sympathize with your situation @thechaingamer.eth ... I am confident there is a path forward for funding for your work... IT IS EPIC but I don't think a DAO vote is the right path. After the vote passes who is supposed to manage these tranches?
I would love it if this was a proposal to fund Questbook to open up more Gaming grants... then it would get my full support.
But I guess I'm just a ‘create a framework’ curmudgeon. :-/
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
After reviewing the proposal, following the converation, and expressing some preliminary thoughts, we decided that we’ll be voting in favour of the proposal during temp-check.
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
After reviewing the proposal, following the converation, and expressing some preliminary thoughts, we decided that we’ll be voting in favour of the proposal during temp-check.
While we understand the argument that we should approach such a proposal with a ‘create a framework’ mindset, we do not like the notion of hindering the ability of the DAO to move forward until such a framework is in place. We should let builders focus on building and have other contributors work on a framework in the meantime.
Hello! Thanks for the detailed comment. I'll try to address all your points. Let me know if I miss something.
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
Hello! Thanks for the detailed comment. I'll try to address all your points. Let me know if I miss something.
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
For sure. This is absolutely a problem and something I am probably guilty of because I obsess over trying to get things just right. However, Zehra and I have extensive experience in large and small companies, building products in a way where we stay in touch with the market as much as poasible and get something in front of users asap. Because we are both aware of how that is the most critical thing.
There is a fine balance though, and the reason for asking for these funds is partially to make sure we have an awesome first impression for users in terms of how they are exposed to the Into the Dungeons universe.
I've commented on the timeline above. From our perspective we want to execute as quickly as possible. As soon as we have the funds we can lock folks in place and start executing. It is our intent to provide regular updates to the DAO.
I hope you were able to see my comments on the marketplace details. It is not at all another marketplace and digital art project, and I really hope it doesn't come across like that. Happy to clarify further if you haven't seen the comments.
I think we should be able to have a few demo playable scenarios between the first and second milestones.
We are going be doing a mint during these milestones as well, so that is a concrete KPI - 7000 packs to mint, and 777 packs for Arb ecosystem users as giveaways.
I would like to be able to make some progress before we share specific KPI goals because like you said, when we share something initial with the market, goals and objectives may very well change.
Ok.
So one step would be wallet connect (web3). Just getting folks to sign a gasless transaction to try the demo.
On the arbitrum side, we would have smart contracts and arbitrum specific game assets. We would like to prioritize the arbitrum specific assets. I think the smart contracts make sense after that. Would that address your concerns?
I'm talking about the process of building a product, where I expressed the opinion that priority should be on the side of web3 and Arbitrum.
I would support your project if the main goal was to implement web3 and multiplayer game mode. For this stage, you don’t even need to implement a smart contract on Arbitrum; you just need to connect your wallet to the site. At the second stage, you can already connect the contract and NFT
I'm talking about the process of building a product, where I expressed the opinion that priority should be on the side of web3 and Arbitrum.
I would support your project if the main goal was to implement web3 and multiplayer game mode. For this stage, you don’t even need to implement a smart contract on Arbitrum; you just need to connect your wallet to the site. At the second stage, you can already connect the contract and NFT
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.
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:
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).
I would recommend checking out the framework presented at the last gaming catalyst call by Helika Gaming
Hey Joe where can we access this?
@JoJo on point here, I second this.
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:
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:
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.
After discussing with several community members, one of the things we want to add to the post is using this proposal as a first step in creating a developer grant framework. Our team will begin drafting the document and put forward that proposal.
Apologies for the messy response. Typing on my phone.
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.
Thanks for taking the time to engage, I really appreciate it!
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.
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.
Thank you Bobbay.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Disclosure: the submitter of this proposal, Ali (thechaingamer.eth), is an ARC member who recused himself from the rest of the ARC’s assessment. Ali was not involved in any discussions pertaining to this proposal.
In its current form, Treasure DAO’s Arbitrum Council (ARC) has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
At the same time, we encourage Ali to consider resubmitting after suggested revisions are digested and made to, or at a later date as new forthcoming grant frameworks are established (ie. the Gaming Catalyst Program or the Developer Grant Framework).
For background, Treasure and its ARC members on an individual basis have been outspoken on our collective desire to see more funding, incentives, and support flow through to gaming projects building upon Arbitrum. We firmly stand by this and believe this to be important for the continued growth and success of Arbitrum’s gaming landscape and more broadly within web3.
We also would like to highlight the background context in which Ali submitted this proposal in an attempt to mobilize the DAO to consider and provide developer grants to support gaming projects submitting proposals outside of frameworks which, to date, have been more catered towards DeFi projects as it pertains to acceptance criteria and distribution methods, or generally insufficiently funded (in the case of Questbook as an example).
We applaud Ali’s efforts to get the ball rolling as we see a massive opportunity for the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem to improve the accessibility to funding and support considering the sizable DAO treasury. This has led Treasure to co-author, contribute, and input into the new Gaming Catalyst Program which we hope to see brought to the Arbitrum DAO governance forum in the coming days / week.
The ARC had originally considered voting FOR the Snapshot vote to progress to Tally given our general support for this effort but we believed that the changes we would like to see listed below are substantive enough to warrant modifications to the proposal that should provide additional color and context which may give rise to deeper forum discussion. Our feeling is delegates and voters on the proposal should be privy to these details which will help further inform their decision making and, as such, led us to voting AGAINST at this stage.
What we like:
Improvements we would like to see:
Finally, we wanted to reiterate that we would like to see a resubmission of this ITD proposal to the Arbitrum DAO and community – whether it is as is as an independent proposal or through one of the forthcoming grant frameworks, including the Gaming Catalyst Grant that we are in the midst of working to help establish.
It is unfortunate Questbook's Gaming Domain has run out of funds. However, I'd prefer to see this type of thing funded through Questbook (or a similar framework) in order to keep a fair playing field for all projects pursuing this. Hopefully another round of funding can be agreed to for a future application.
I will be voting "Against" this proposal. While I understand we lose some nimbleness by going the framework route, I think long-term the positives from this type of solution outweighs the short-term negatives.
It is unfortunate Questbook's Gaming Domain has run out of funds. However, I'd prefer to see this type of thing funded through Questbook (or a similar framework) in order to keep a fair playing field for all projects pursuing this. Hopefully another round of funding can be agreed to for a future application.
I will be voting "Against" this proposal. While I understand we lose some nimbleness by going the framework route, I think long-term the positives from this type of solution outweighs the short-term negatives.
I will encourage that the work on the developer grant framework continue, as it sounds like something that can be useful to the DAO. Assuming a reasonable presentation, I would likely vote in support of something like that. I'll add, while I understand the thought that using this grant to as a stepping stone towards a comprehensive developer grant framework, I'm not sure I agree this is the best method. We already should have some data from Questbook's Gaming Domain, as well as the numerous other grant frameworks over the last year. So I'm not sure what can really be gained with that method.
Appreciate it @maxlomu - agree with all this and if you see the comments the idea was to make a bunch of changes that would move towards:
We'll be making revisions to this proposal.
Appreciate it @maxlomu - agree with all this and if you see the comments the idea was to make a bunch of changes that would move towards:
We'll be making revisions to this proposal.
Unfortunately, it seems like the DAO doesn't have much appetite for doing anything outside a framework. It doesn't look like that is going to be changing anytime soon. So we will continue to build and see where it goes.
Thanks.
I really sympathize with your situation @thechaingamer.eth … I am confident there is a path forward for funding for your work… IT IS EPIC but I don’t think a DAO vote is the right path. After the vote passes who is supposed to manage these tranches?
I really sympathize with your situation @thechaingamer.eth … I am confident there is a path forward for funding for your work… IT IS EPIC but I don’t think a DAO vote is the right path. After the vote passes who is supposed to manage these tranches?
No worries, @Griff. All good.
Idea was for the progress on milestones to be very transparently shared here on the forums. Burden of proof (in terms of work performed and how it measures up against the milestones) would be on the Machinata team.
A simple yay or nay vote on "do we release the next 60K arb". Nothing is simple in a DAO though :)
While we understand the argument that we should approach such a proposal with a ‘create a framework’ mindset, we do not like the notion of hindering the ability of the DAO to move forward until such a framework is in place. We should let builders focus on building and have other contributors work on a framework in the meantime.
While we understand the argument that we should approach such a proposal with a ‘create a framework’ mindset, we do not like the notion of hindering the ability of the DAO to move forward until such a framework is in place. We should let builders focus on building and have other contributors work on a framework in the meantime.
Thank you for your time, thoughtful feedback and support. It is much appreciated, ser! :heart: :saluting_face:
This is all VERY reasonable, but I really can't support 1-off grant proposals... The overhead is too much for our DAO IMO, even with a promise of a future framework.
I really sympathize with your situation @thechaingamer.eth ... I am confident there is a path forward for funding for your work... IT IS EPIC but I don't think a DAO vote is the right path. After the vote passes who is supposed to manage these tranches?
This is all VERY reasonable, but I really can't support 1-off grant proposals... The overhead is too much for our DAO IMO, even with a promise of a future framework.
I really sympathize with your situation @thechaingamer.eth ... I am confident there is a path forward for funding for your work... IT IS EPIC but I don't think a DAO vote is the right path. After the vote passes who is supposed to manage these tranches?
I would love it if this was a proposal to fund Questbook to open up more Gaming grants... then it would get my full support.
But I guess I'm just a ‘create a framework’ curmudgeon. :-/
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
After reviewing the proposal, following the converation, and expressing some preliminary thoughts, we decided that we’ll be voting in favour of the proposal during temp-check.
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
After reviewing the proposal, following the converation, and expressing some preliminary thoughts, we decided that we’ll be voting in favour of the proposal during temp-check.
While we understand the argument that we should approach such a proposal with a ‘create a framework’ mindset, we do not like the notion of hindering the ability of the DAO to move forward until such a framework is in place. We should let builders focus on building and have other contributors work on a framework in the meantime.
Hello! Thanks for the detailed comment. I'll try to address all your points. Let me know if I miss something.
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
Hello! Thanks for the detailed comment. I'll try to address all your points. Let me know if I miss something.
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
For sure. This is absolutely a problem and something I am probably guilty of because I obsess over trying to get things just right. However, Zehra and I have extensive experience in large and small companies, building products in a way where we stay in touch with the market as much as poasible and get something in front of users asap. Because we are both aware of how that is the most critical thing.
There is a fine balance though, and the reason for asking for these funds is partially to make sure we have an awesome first impression for users in terms of how they are exposed to the Into the Dungeons universe.
I've commented on the timeline above. From our perspective we want to execute as quickly as possible. As soon as we have the funds we can lock folks in place and start executing. It is our intent to provide regular updates to the DAO.
I hope you were able to see my comments on the marketplace details. It is not at all another marketplace and digital art project, and I really hope it doesn't come across like that. Happy to clarify further if you haven't seen the comments.
I think we should be able to have a few demo playable scenarios between the first and second milestones.
We are going be doing a mint during these milestones as well, so that is a concrete KPI - 7000 packs to mint, and 777 packs for Arb ecosystem users as giveaways.
I would like to be able to make some progress before we share specific KPI goals because like you said, when we share something initial with the market, goals and objectives may very well change.
Ok.
So one step would be wallet connect (web3). Just getting folks to sign a gasless transaction to try the demo.
On the arbitrum side, we would have smart contracts and arbitrum specific game assets. We would like to prioritize the arbitrum specific assets. I think the smart contracts make sense after that. Would that address your concerns?
I'm talking about the process of building a product, where I expressed the opinion that priority should be on the side of web3 and Arbitrum.
I would support your project if the main goal was to implement web3 and multiplayer game mode. For this stage, you don’t even need to implement a smart contract on Arbitrum; you just need to connect your wallet to the site. At the second stage, you can already connect the contract and NFT
I'm talking about the process of building a product, where I expressed the opinion that priority should be on the side of web3 and Arbitrum.
I would support your project if the main goal was to implement web3 and multiplayer game mode. For this stage, you don’t even need to implement a smart contract on Arbitrum; you just need to connect your wallet to the site. At the second stage, you can already connect the contract and NFT
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.
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:
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).
I would recommend checking out the framework presented at the last gaming catalyst call by Helika Gaming
Hey Joe where can we access this?
@JoJo on point here, I second this.
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:
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:
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.
After discussing with several community members, one of the things we want to add to the post is using this proposal as a first step in creating a developer grant framework. Our team will begin drafting the document and put forward that proposal.
Apologies for the messy response. Typing on my phone.
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.
Thanks for taking the time to engage, I really appreciate it!
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.
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.
Thank you Bobbay.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
After discussing with several community members, one of the things we want to add to the post is using this proposal as a first step in creating a developer grant framework. Our team will begin drafting the document and put forward that proposal.
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).
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
@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!
Apologies for the messy response. Typing on my phone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
See my answer above. Tell me what you think.
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?
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'll ping you on TG so we can begin!
Thanks for taking the time to engage, I really appreciate it!
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.
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.
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.
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.
We would instead need to have another discussion a Developer Grant Framework (which we should totally have)
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?
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.
Thank you Bobbay.
In one of the previous posts I highlighted the amount of effort it takes to make these miniatures with all the animations.
In addition, one of the main things to do, in order to make sure we make a positive impact and get a lot of attention from potential users, is to ensure the main webpage - where we tell the story of the ITD world and also where we will bring folks to mint the miniature base packs for the game - makes a HUGE impact. That is going to be an expensive undertaking. We are actually in talks with the designers who created this website: https://www.kprverse.com - just so you have some context.
Thank you, Ali
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.
I must have missed the comments. I did see your previous comment and had a question about it because it was not clear to me what you meant.
Would love to understand exactly what would be important to your community and how we can address that.
Thank you!
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
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.
Would we have had the ARDC if the original @BlockworksResearch proposal for an Arbitrum Coalition was passed? Probably not
Would STIP have taken place if the @Camelot original proposal passed? Doubtful
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here is why I disagree.
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
Would STIP have taken place if the @Camelot original proposal passed? Doubtful
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.
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
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
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.
Best, Ali
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.
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.
Thanks again, ser!
Thank you! It is our hope that ITD can become a huge success and benefit the Arbitrum ecosystem greatly.
Hopefully, the response to @thedevanshmehta's post above (quoted below) helps address some of your concerns.
Thank you!
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:
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
ty ser!
Appreciate the feedback. As I've said earlier, this is definitely something we might run into:
ty ser!
Appreciate the feedback. As I've said earlier, this is definitely something we might run into:
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.)
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!
Thank you!
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
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 ?
First off, thank you @krst for taking the time to talk the other day and also leave such detailed and thoughtful feedback.
I don't think there is much for me to add to what you said. I agree with pretty much all of what you've said.
A couple of points that might be worth expanding upon are:
1.Making the game feel Arbitrum native
Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion, and not a statement of L2BEAT Governance Team
I’d like to start by saying that I’ve spent fair amount of time with @thechaingamer.eth, discussing his vision behind this game, his past experiences and how he plans to bring this to the market. I really enjoyed this discussion and I see @thechaingamer.eth as a dedicated builder who has a decent amount of experience in the IT world, has been involved in building and growing companies and has seen his fair share of big IT projects being delivered to the market, in short - he’s not only really dedicated and passionate about his project but it seems he knows what he’s doing.
I am voting "For" on this.
I already expressed the right way, imo, to look at this:
I am voting "For" on this.
I already expressed the right way, imo, to look at this:
And, I still believe in this:
This is a gap that we have and that we need to address in general. It could be partially mitigated if the questbook program, now almost out of funds, will be renewed. But we need a development grant program for the dao. This is the can of worm you are opening with this request, and I am glad you are doing it because it’s something we need to solve sooner rather than later.
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:
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.
Not sure I understand this tbh.
The problem is all these things go hand in hand. It isn't that marketing and branding and design don't happen alongside building. The fact is if you build without focusing on the rest, you get no adoption.
For a product, and for the DAO, that is the ultimate goal.
Also, not sure what you mean by:
Not sure I understand this tbh.
The problem is all these things go hand in hand. It isn't that marketing and branding and design don't happen alongside building. The fact is if you build without focusing on the rest, you get no adoption.
For a product, and for the DAO, that is the ultimate goal.
Also, not sure what you mean by:
And if you have more qualitative picture of your game - please give it to community.
Thanks, Ali
Hello, I would support your project if the main goal was to implement web3 and multiplayer game mode. For this stage, you don’t even need to implement a smart contract on Arbitrum; you just need to connect your wallet to the site. At the second stage, you can already connect the contract and NFT. And calculate how many people and funds are required for this. At the first stage, I think it’s not entirely correct to ask for funding for marketing, branding and design. And if you have more qualitative picture of your game - please give it to community.
Thank you for the feedback @Djinn!
I hope that makes sense.
Thank you for the feedback @Djinn!
I hope that makes sense.
Here's an idea of the resource breakdown.
4 people involved in this process - myself from a game design perspective, our concept artist, our pixel artist & animator, Unreal dev - and it would overall likely be a 3 to 4 week process.
And by the way, if the community starts creating units etc. here, that would help with the cost which is why the 70 / 30 split since I would still want to review each unit and each animation, and concept to make sure it aligns with the lore and the quality of the game and the style of the art already there!
I hope that provides some insight.
After discussing with several community members, one of the things we want to add to the post is using this proposal as a first step in creating a developer grant framework. Our team will begin drafting the document and put forward that proposal.
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).
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
@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!
Apologies for the messy response. Typing on my phone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
See my answer above. Tell me what you think.
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?
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'll ping you on TG so we can begin!
Thanks for taking the time to engage, I really appreciate it!
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.
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.
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.
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.
We would instead need to have another discussion a Developer Grant Framework (which we should totally have)
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?
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.
Thank you Bobbay.
In one of the previous posts I highlighted the amount of effort it takes to make these miniatures with all the animations.
In addition, one of the main things to do, in order to make sure we make a positive impact and get a lot of attention from potential users, is to ensure the main webpage - where we tell the story of the ITD world and also where we will bring folks to mint the miniature base packs for the game - makes a HUGE impact. That is going to be an expensive undertaking. We are actually in talks with the designers who created this website: https://www.kprverse.com - just so you have some context.
Thank you, Ali
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.
I must have missed the comments. I did see your previous comment and had a question about it because it was not clear to me what you meant.
Would love to understand exactly what would be important to your community and how we can address that.
Thank you!
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
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.
Would we have had the ARDC if the original @BlockworksResearch proposal for an Arbitrum Coalition was passed? Probably not
Would STIP have taken place if the @Camelot original proposal passed? Doubtful
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here is why I disagree.
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
Would STIP have taken place if the @Camelot original proposal passed? Doubtful
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.
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
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
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.
Best, Ali
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.
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.
Thanks again, ser!
Thank you! It is our hope that ITD can become a huge success and benefit the Arbitrum ecosystem greatly.
Hopefully, the response to @thedevanshmehta's post above (quoted below) helps address some of your concerns.
Thank you!
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:
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
ty ser!
Appreciate the feedback. As I've said earlier, this is definitely something we might run into:
ty ser!
Appreciate the feedback. As I've said earlier, this is definitely something we might run into:
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.)
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!
Thank you!
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
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 ?
First off, thank you @krst for taking the time to talk the other day and also leave such detailed and thoughtful feedback.
I don't think there is much for me to add to what you said. I agree with pretty much all of what you've said.
A couple of points that might be worth expanding upon are:
1.Making the game feel Arbitrum native
Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion, and not a statement of L2BEAT Governance Team
I’d like to start by saying that I’ve spent fair amount of time with @thechaingamer.eth, discussing his vision behind this game, his past experiences and how he plans to bring this to the market. I really enjoyed this discussion and I see @thechaingamer.eth as a dedicated builder who has a decent amount of experience in the IT world, has been involved in building and growing companies and has seen his fair share of big IT projects being delivered to the market, in short - he’s not only really dedicated and passionate about his project but it seems he knows what he’s doing.
I am voting "For" on this.
I already expressed the right way, imo, to look at this:
I am voting "For" on this.
I already expressed the right way, imo, to look at this:
And, I still believe in this:
This is a gap that we have and that we need to address in general. It could be partially mitigated if the questbook program, now almost out of funds, will be renewed. But we need a development grant program for the dao. This is the can of worm you are opening with this request, and I am glad you are doing it because it’s something we need to solve sooner rather than later.
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:
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.
Not sure I understand this tbh.
The problem is all these things go hand in hand. It isn't that marketing and branding and design don't happen alongside building. The fact is if you build without focusing on the rest, you get no adoption.
For a product, and for the DAO, that is the ultimate goal.
Also, not sure what you mean by:
Not sure I understand this tbh.
The problem is all these things go hand in hand. It isn't that marketing and branding and design don't happen alongside building. The fact is if you build without focusing on the rest, you get no adoption.
For a product, and for the DAO, that is the ultimate goal.
Also, not sure what you mean by:
And if you have more qualitative picture of your game - please give it to community.
Thanks, Ali
Hello, I would support your project if the main goal was to implement web3 and multiplayer game mode. For this stage, you don’t even need to implement a smart contract on Arbitrum; you just need to connect your wallet to the site. At the second stage, you can already connect the contract and NFT. And calculate how many people and funds are required for this. At the first stage, I think it’s not entirely correct to ask for funding for marketing, branding and design. And if you have more qualitative picture of your game - please give it to community.
Thank you for the feedback @Djinn!
I hope that makes sense.
Thank you for the feedback @Djinn!
I hope that makes sense.
Here's an idea of the resource breakdown.
4 people involved in this process - myself from a game design perspective, our concept artist, our pixel artist & animator, Unreal dev - and it would overall likely be a 3 to 4 week process.
And by the way, if the community starts creating units etc. here, that would help with the cost which is why the 70 / 30 split since I would still want to review each unit and each animation, and concept to make sure it aligns with the lore and the quality of the game and the style of the art already there!
I hope that provides some insight.
First off, thank you @krst for taking the time to talk the other day and also leave such detailed and thoughtful feedback.
I don't think there is much for me to add to what you said. I agree with pretty much all of what you've said.
A couple of points that might be worth expanding upon are:
1.Making the game feel Arbitrum native
Honestly, we have no plans to build this out of Arb regardless of whether or not the DAO agrees to fund us. That being said, we want to integrate parts of ARB culture into the game. The MUX variantcwas one example - we want to do XAI, GMX, L2BEATS, SAVVY, TREASURE, CAMELOT, to name a few.
Additionally, @svRamsey made me aware of Sanko - arb native streaming, which would be another wonderful integration point. @svRamsey also had a fantastic idea on how savvy could be used by folks to try the game risk free!
As we build the game out and expand, I would like nothing more than to see it become an integral part of ARB culture.
2.The potential of cross-marketing is huge. I want to do as much of that as possible. Also would appreciate any and all feedback and help in this area!
Thank you again!
Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion, and not a statement of L2BEAT Governance Team
I’d like to start by saying that I’ve spent fair amount of time with @thechaingamer.eth, discussing his vision behind this game, his past experiences and how he plans to bring this to the market. I really enjoyed this discussion and I see @thechaingamer.eth as a dedicated builder who has a decent amount of experience in the IT world, has been involved in building and growing companies and has seen his fair share of big IT projects being delivered to the market, in short - he’s not only really dedicated and passionate about his project but it seems he knows what he’s doing.
I am definitely not an expert on indie games myself, although I do have some background on the market.
I see this project a bit differently than @thechaingamer.eth presents it, as I look at it from the DAO delegate perspective, and not a game author perspective. I’d like to share this view for feedback and consideration.
First of all, for me this project is not just about the game.
Of course the game is essential, I like the overall look&feel, it reminds me a bit of HoMM feat Gwent, so it sparks positive emotions. And I like pixel art, so it resonates with me. But from the DAO delegate perspective I don’t care that the game is not finished yet, I even like the fact that it will take some time for this game to be finished, as this allows us to use the potential buzz around it for our (DAO) benefit for a longer time.
I like the fact that the business model in this game revolves mostly around the fees from NFT collectibles and does not depend on in-game on-chain activity. That way it is cheaper for players and with Arbitrum low fees and the game’s low on-chain footprint new players would be able to enjoy it longer without being worried about gas costs and anything around it (although we also discussed how those topics could be ingrained in the game, so that it’s even fully transparent for the players).
At the same time if the game becomes successful we should expect significant traffic on those collectibles and in-game assets, which (with some luck) can easily scale to significant on-chain activity and inflow of TVL.
Furthermore, as this game is going to be funded (assuming the proposal would pass) from the DAO, we need to make sure that what we’re paying for is ingrained in Arbitrum ecosystem and not easily portable as-is to other ecosystems.
The game itself with its’ mechanics, assets, etc. would not be very Arbitrum-specific, everything, including the smart contracts is very easily transferable into other EVM-compatible chains. What is not easily transferable though is Arbitrum culture, which I understand as a unique set of recognizable projects and individuals involved in the community. If we can plant it somehow to the game, then even if the whole game was ported (or forked) to other ecosystem, it will end up being totally different product (with it’s own culture ingredient), clearly distinguishable from the Arbitrum OG.
Here come the project-branded assets already teased by @thechaingamer.eth. If the game makes extensive use of this differentiator and plants those Arbitrum-specific seeds at its’ core then we end up with not just having a (hopefully) successful game in our ecosystem, but a truly Arbitrum-native game. And since the game has a p2p tournament aspect in it, we can even strengthen this effect by having project-branded teams competing against each other, and even in-game ‘clans’ centered around projects. This, of course, only amplifies the market for collectibles, both digital and real-world.
From that perspective we can treat this project as not just an investment in a particular game, but also as a potentially attractive NFT project as well as marketing tool for the DAO that exposes and strengthens our unique community of projects and individuals. I can easily imagine game-related, project-branded swag distributed during ethCC or Devcon. For example t-shirts with specific creatures from the game but with clear distinction of the project ‘clan’, so there would be a line of GMX t-shirts, MUX t-shits, Camelot t-shirts etc. all providing exposure both to individual projects and to the ecosystem at the same time, in a subtle and visually attractive way.
It’s important to note that all of this could be achieved kind of regardless of whether the game itself achieves great success or not, that way it’s a much safer investment for the DAO as it provides benefits way beyond just having new game in the ecosystem.
Of course this assumes some unified support of this idea and involvement (at least in form of acceptance) from Arbitrum projects and broader community.
Wrapping up - this broader vision is the reason why I believe this proposal is an opportunity for the DAO and makes me excited about it. That’s also why I believe that in that broader vision it should go through the whole-DAO route rather then any specific program or framework.
Of course, this is my vision for the project, which doesn't necessarily have to be completely in line with what @thechaingamer.eth has in mind, but I think it might be interesting to at least discuss it a bit further.
Thank you! This is actually a great idea and one that I had not thought of!
The idea for our Machinata Marketplace was basically two-fold.
Thank you! This is actually a great idea and one that I had not thought of!
The idea for our Machinata Marketplace was basically two-fold.
Provide artists with a set of tools (think even as basic as Asperite templates) that allows them to create new miniatures or variants. This can happen outside of any "marketplace"
The second part is submitting, getting approval and then publishing their variant which would be an edition of 100 or 250 or 500 etc.
This is not something we would like to recreate and I think it would be awesome to have it powered by Trove! We might want a specific frontend that showcases our miniatures and their special animations and whatnot, but I would LOVE for it to be using the Trove backend and contracts. It might even make sense for us to extend the Trove contracts to support some of the functionality we might need if it doesn't exist.
This was a fantastic suggestion! Thank you!
Love the progress so far. 180k ARB doesn't seem like excessive spend and makes sense to get the game from prototype to launch.
I do believe the sell tax is a bit high but that's up to you guys, if it's the commercial model then it is what it is.
Do you know how much it will cost to iteratively introduce new cards? Rough estimate?
:pray: - 2024 is the year of ARB!
JoJo,
Thank you.
This is a development grant. Because you are asking for a grant not to incentives a product that already exists but to create one. It’s not, as most think, a problem of gaming vs defi grant imho.
In my opinion, you're 100% correct on this. It is. It's not a gaming vs. defi problem.
JoJo,
Thank you.
This is a development grant. Because you are asking for a grant not to incentives a product that already exists but to create one. It’s not, as most think, a problem of gaming vs defi grant imho.
In my opinion, you're 100% correct on this. It is. It's not a gaming vs. defi problem.
My motivation for creating this proposal is to try and expedite our processes. I understand and agree with the need for frameworks, but, and this might be my own bias, I believe that in tech at least, one should start with things that don't necessarily scale and then worry about scaling.
One of the concerns I've heard from various folks is "What if we get an influx of requests if this one is voted on or passes? It won't scale.". However, I do not think there is anything preventing the DAO from being able to act on these proposals at least while we basically have very little activity on the proposals forum anyway, and it is mostly about frameworks.
I think we have the framework we need at the moment, and I appreciated what @coinflip wrote in the thread: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-now-a-pragmatic-approach-for-the-moment/15779 - from what I have seen a lot of folks do echo these sentiments. This is an experiment trying to figure out how much action we can get folks to take and how quickly we can move. In fact, @Soby's response (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-now-a-pragmatic-approach-for-the-moment/15779/2?u=thechaingamer.eth) had the most likes in thread where he also voiced the opinion "The DAO is the framework".
My hope for this proposal is that it generates enough interest/discussion to warrant a vote and that vote passes outside of all these different programs. I've looked into the DAO programs and the pluraity labs one (we won that btw got us 2500 $ARB which might help with like two pixel art figures) and the questbook grant, (which was capped at $25K and @Flook was super supportive, spending a lot of time discussing the proposal) being out of funds - so it's basically another wait for X weeks or a couple of months before that gets approved, then apply etc. etc.
This is the builders' dilemma.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this discussion, because I know we all have a bunch going on and are trying to find the best way forward. I really do appreciate it.
Best, Ali
This is fantastic feedback. Thank you!
Hadn't thought about permission less tournaments and definitely something that would be good to look into. Integration with defi project in general is something that we want to do. I also really liked the idea you shared in TG re. people getting a savvy loan to potentially buy miniatures and try the game.
Sanko integration makes a lot of sense. We definitely see Machinata be a competitive and stream able game so using a streaming platform that is arb native makes a ton of sense!
GTM is super important and the idea there is to a. Get the website up and running b. Teasers on twitter c. Partnering with different communities that we have relationships with and are a part of. A couple examples would be ZenAcademy, Forgotten Runes, etc. d. Release playable scenario prior to mint e. Launch teaser of marketplace f. Begin marketing, giveaways, WLs via different alpha groups g. Announce mint date
This is fantastic feedback. Thank you!
Hadn't thought about permission less tournaments and definitely something that would be good to look into. Integration with defi project in general is something that we want to do. I also really liked the idea you shared in TG re. people getting a savvy loan to potentially buy miniatures and try the game.
Sanko integration makes a lot of sense. We definitely see Machinata be a competitive and stream able game so using a streaming platform that is arb native makes a ton of sense!
GTM is super important and the idea there is to a. Get the website up and running b. Teasers on twitter c. Partnering with different communities that we have relationships with and are a part of. A couple examples would be ZenAcademy, Forgotten Runes, etc. d. Release playable scenario prior to mint e. Launch teaser of marketplace f. Begin marketing, giveaways, WLs via different alpha groups g. Announce mint date
We believe this will do a couple of important things.
It should get more gamers onboarded onto ARB. the website will be the first intro to the world of ITD and then the rest of marketing via collabs etc. will be geared towards ETH and ETH L2s outside of arb.
Give us an accurate sense of how many folks will be playing as the game launches (small percentage of minters assuming most are buying for trading purposes)
This leads to your last point.
To engage more folks, we will do some competitions and NFT or ETH or ARB giveaways as prizes and hopefully be able to partner with Sanko to stream and create more interest!
Thank you for the feedback!
This is definitely interesting and something we can look into doing first. The only thing that would need to happen here is implementing the multi-player functionality first, and marketing it to the gaming community as an invitational.
The only thing I would say here is we have a playable single player prototype that we are adding an AI opponent to. The reason we wanted to do the Marketplace was to publish a few special edition miniatures to gauge the demand. Obviously marketing would have to happen first so I think this fits in with point 1 above.
The idea is not to give out 7777 packs. The thought was that we would allocate 777 (again, number TBD) which is 10% of the supply and distribute it amongst the Arbitrum community. The rest of the supply, 7000 would be minted out.
Thank you for the feedback!
This is definitely interesting and something we can look into doing first. The only thing that would need to happen here is implementing the multi-player functionality first, and marketing it to the gaming community as an invitational.
The only thing I would say here is we have a playable single player prototype that we are adding an AI opponent to. The reason we wanted to do the Marketplace was to publish a few special edition miniatures to gauge the demand. Obviously marketing would have to happen first so I think this fits in with point 1 above.
The idea is not to give out 7777 packs. The thought was that we would allocate 777 (again, number TBD) which is 10% of the supply and distribute it amongst the Arbitrum community. The rest of the supply, 7000 would be minted out.
I hope that addresses your points. Please let me know if there's any additional clarification I can offer.
I don't know much about games, but I have really appreciated the learnings from karel, dan, soby, and the gaming catalyst group. I do feel that I have zero expertise in gaming and would defer to these gaming experts. I would recommend checking out the framework presented at the last gaming catalyst call by Helika Gaming. This amount is in their first tier and so I'm inclined to support if the gaming experts do.
First thing first: i love the feeling. reminds me of alundra/chrono cross on the UI with a mix of the mechanics of strats turns rpg. The addition of cards makes me really interested in the product. That said, I don't have an extensive knowledge of gaming in web3, even tho i have spent more hours that I would like to admit on defi kingdom and a few others.
But i will frame the whole thing from a different standpoint.
First thing first: i love the feeling. reminds me of alundra/chrono cross on the UI with a mix of the mechanics of strats turns rpg. The addition of cards makes me really interested in the product. That said, I don't have an extensive knowledge of gaming in web3, even tho i have spent more hours that I would like to admit on defi kingdom and a few others.
But i will frame the whole thing from a different standpoint.
This is a development grant. Because you are asking for a grant not to incentives a product that already exists but to create one. It's not, as most think, a problem of gaming vs defi grant imho.
So far, these development grants have only been gone through (in my knowledge)
But they never went through the dao.
This is a gap that we have and that we need to address in general. It could be partially mitigated if the questbook program, now almost out of funds, will be renewed. But we need a development grant program for the dao. This is the can of worm you are opening with this request, and I am glad you are doing it because it's something we need to solve sooner rather than later.
My personal opinion of course.
Hi, I like these types of games, but I would change the order of implementation and payouts.
First off, thank you @krst for taking the time to talk the other day and also leave such detailed and thoughtful feedback.
I don't think there is much for me to add to what you said. I agree with pretty much all of what you've said.
A couple of points that might be worth expanding upon are:
1.Making the game feel Arbitrum native
Honestly, we have no plans to build this out of Arb regardless of whether or not the DAO agrees to fund us. That being said, we want to integrate parts of ARB culture into the game. The MUX variantcwas one example - we want to do XAI, GMX, L2BEATS, SAVVY, TREASURE, CAMELOT, to name a few.
Additionally, @svRamsey made me aware of Sanko - arb native streaming, which would be another wonderful integration point. @svRamsey also had a fantastic idea on how savvy could be used by folks to try the game risk free!
As we build the game out and expand, I would like nothing more than to see it become an integral part of ARB culture.
2.The potential of cross-marketing is huge. I want to do as much of that as possible. Also would appreciate any and all feedback and help in this area!
Thank you again!
Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion, and not a statement of L2BEAT Governance Team
I’d like to start by saying that I’ve spent fair amount of time with @thechaingamer.eth, discussing his vision behind this game, his past experiences and how he plans to bring this to the market. I really enjoyed this discussion and I see @thechaingamer.eth as a dedicated builder who has a decent amount of experience in the IT world, has been involved in building and growing companies and has seen his fair share of big IT projects being delivered to the market, in short - he’s not only really dedicated and passionate about his project but it seems he knows what he’s doing.
I am definitely not an expert on indie games myself, although I do have some background on the market.
I see this project a bit differently than @thechaingamer.eth presents it, as I look at it from the DAO delegate perspective, and not a game author perspective. I’d like to share this view for feedback and consideration.
First of all, for me this project is not just about the game.
Of course the game is essential, I like the overall look&feel, it reminds me a bit of HoMM feat Gwent, so it sparks positive emotions. And I like pixel art, so it resonates with me. But from the DAO delegate perspective I don’t care that the game is not finished yet, I even like the fact that it will take some time for this game to be finished, as this allows us to use the potential buzz around it for our (DAO) benefit for a longer time.
I like the fact that the business model in this game revolves mostly around the fees from NFT collectibles and does not depend on in-game on-chain activity. That way it is cheaper for players and with Arbitrum low fees and the game’s low on-chain footprint new players would be able to enjoy it longer without being worried about gas costs and anything around it (although we also discussed how those topics could be ingrained in the game, so that it’s even fully transparent for the players).
At the same time if the game becomes successful we should expect significant traffic on those collectibles and in-game assets, which (with some luck) can easily scale to significant on-chain activity and inflow of TVL.
Furthermore, as this game is going to be funded (assuming the proposal would pass) from the DAO, we need to make sure that what we’re paying for is ingrained in Arbitrum ecosystem and not easily portable as-is to other ecosystems.
The game itself with its’ mechanics, assets, etc. would not be very Arbitrum-specific, everything, including the smart contracts is very easily transferable into other EVM-compatible chains. What is not easily transferable though is Arbitrum culture, which I understand as a unique set of recognizable projects and individuals involved in the community. If we can plant it somehow to the game, then even if the whole game was ported (or forked) to other ecosystem, it will end up being totally different product (with it’s own culture ingredient), clearly distinguishable from the Arbitrum OG.
Here come the project-branded assets already teased by @thechaingamer.eth. If the game makes extensive use of this differentiator and plants those Arbitrum-specific seeds at its’ core then we end up with not just having a (hopefully) successful game in our ecosystem, but a truly Arbitrum-native game. And since the game has a p2p tournament aspect in it, we can even strengthen this effect by having project-branded teams competing against each other, and even in-game ‘clans’ centered around projects. This, of course, only amplifies the market for collectibles, both digital and real-world.
From that perspective we can treat this project as not just an investment in a particular game, but also as a potentially attractive NFT project as well as marketing tool for the DAO that exposes and strengthens our unique community of projects and individuals. I can easily imagine game-related, project-branded swag distributed during ethCC or Devcon. For example t-shirts with specific creatures from the game but with clear distinction of the project ‘clan’, so there would be a line of GMX t-shirts, MUX t-shits, Camelot t-shirts etc. all providing exposure both to individual projects and to the ecosystem at the same time, in a subtle and visually attractive way.
It’s important to note that all of this could be achieved kind of regardless of whether the game itself achieves great success or not, that way it’s a much safer investment for the DAO as it provides benefits way beyond just having new game in the ecosystem.
Of course this assumes some unified support of this idea and involvement (at least in form of acceptance) from Arbitrum projects and broader community.
Wrapping up - this broader vision is the reason why I believe this proposal is an opportunity for the DAO and makes me excited about it. That’s also why I believe that in that broader vision it should go through the whole-DAO route rather then any specific program or framework.
Of course, this is my vision for the project, which doesn't necessarily have to be completely in line with what @thechaingamer.eth has in mind, but I think it might be interesting to at least discuss it a bit further.
Thank you! This is actually a great idea and one that I had not thought of!
The idea for our Machinata Marketplace was basically two-fold.
Thank you! This is actually a great idea and one that I had not thought of!
The idea for our Machinata Marketplace was basically two-fold.
Provide artists with a set of tools (think even as basic as Asperite templates) that allows them to create new miniatures or variants. This can happen outside of any "marketplace"
The second part is submitting, getting approval and then publishing their variant which would be an edition of 100 or 250 or 500 etc.
This is not something we would like to recreate and I think it would be awesome to have it powered by Trove! We might want a specific frontend that showcases our miniatures and their special animations and whatnot, but I would LOVE for it to be using the Trove backend and contracts. It might even make sense for us to extend the Trove contracts to support some of the functionality we might need if it doesn't exist.
This was a fantastic suggestion! Thank you!
Love the progress so far. 180k ARB doesn't seem like excessive spend and makes sense to get the game from prototype to launch.
I do believe the sell tax is a bit high but that's up to you guys, if it's the commercial model then it is what it is.
Do you know how much it will cost to iteratively introduce new cards? Rough estimate?
:pray: - 2024 is the year of ARB!
JoJo,
Thank you.
This is a development grant. Because you are asking for a grant not to incentives a product that already exists but to create one. It’s not, as most think, a problem of gaming vs defi grant imho.
In my opinion, you're 100% correct on this. It is. It's not a gaming vs. defi problem.
JoJo,
Thank you.
This is a development grant. Because you are asking for a grant not to incentives a product that already exists but to create one. It’s not, as most think, a problem of gaming vs defi grant imho.
In my opinion, you're 100% correct on this. It is. It's not a gaming vs. defi problem.
My motivation for creating this proposal is to try and expedite our processes. I understand and agree with the need for frameworks, but, and this might be my own bias, I believe that in tech at least, one should start with things that don't necessarily scale and then worry about scaling.
One of the concerns I've heard from various folks is "What if we get an influx of requests if this one is voted on or passes? It won't scale.". However, I do not think there is anything preventing the DAO from being able to act on these proposals at least while we basically have very little activity on the proposals forum anyway, and it is mostly about frameworks.
I think we have the framework we need at the moment, and I appreciated what @coinflip wrote in the thread: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-now-a-pragmatic-approach-for-the-moment/15779 - from what I have seen a lot of folks do echo these sentiments. This is an experiment trying to figure out how much action we can get folks to take and how quickly we can move. In fact, @Soby's response (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-now-a-pragmatic-approach-for-the-moment/15779/2?u=thechaingamer.eth) had the most likes in thread where he also voiced the opinion "The DAO is the framework".
My hope for this proposal is that it generates enough interest/discussion to warrant a vote and that vote passes outside of all these different programs. I've looked into the DAO programs and the pluraity labs one (we won that btw got us 2500 $ARB which might help with like two pixel art figures) and the questbook grant, (which was capped at $25K and @Flook was super supportive, spending a lot of time discussing the proposal) being out of funds - so it's basically another wait for X weeks or a couple of months before that gets approved, then apply etc. etc.
This is the builders' dilemma.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this discussion, because I know we all have a bunch going on and are trying to find the best way forward. I really do appreciate it.
Best, Ali
This is fantastic feedback. Thank you!
Hadn't thought about permission less tournaments and definitely something that would be good to look into. Integration with defi project in general is something that we want to do. I also really liked the idea you shared in TG re. people getting a savvy loan to potentially buy miniatures and try the game.
Sanko integration makes a lot of sense. We definitely see Machinata be a competitive and stream able game so using a streaming platform that is arb native makes a ton of sense!
GTM is super important and the idea there is to a. Get the website up and running b. Teasers on twitter c. Partnering with different communities that we have relationships with and are a part of. A couple examples would be ZenAcademy, Forgotten Runes, etc. d. Release playable scenario prior to mint e. Launch teaser of marketplace f. Begin marketing, giveaways, WLs via different alpha groups g. Announce mint date
This is fantastic feedback. Thank you!
Hadn't thought about permission less tournaments and definitely something that would be good to look into. Integration with defi project in general is something that we want to do. I also really liked the idea you shared in TG re. people getting a savvy loan to potentially buy miniatures and try the game.
Sanko integration makes a lot of sense. We definitely see Machinata be a competitive and stream able game so using a streaming platform that is arb native makes a ton of sense!
GTM is super important and the idea there is to a. Get the website up and running b. Teasers on twitter c. Partnering with different communities that we have relationships with and are a part of. A couple examples would be ZenAcademy, Forgotten Runes, etc. d. Release playable scenario prior to mint e. Launch teaser of marketplace f. Begin marketing, giveaways, WLs via different alpha groups g. Announce mint date
We believe this will do a couple of important things.
It should get more gamers onboarded onto ARB. the website will be the first intro to the world of ITD and then the rest of marketing via collabs etc. will be geared towards ETH and ETH L2s outside of arb.
Give us an accurate sense of how many folks will be playing as the game launches (small percentage of minters assuming most are buying for trading purposes)
This leads to your last point.
To engage more folks, we will do some competitions and NFT or ETH or ARB giveaways as prizes and hopefully be able to partner with Sanko to stream and create more interest!
Thank you for the feedback!
This is definitely interesting and something we can look into doing first. The only thing that would need to happen here is implementing the multi-player functionality first, and marketing it to the gaming community as an invitational.
The only thing I would say here is we have a playable single player prototype that we are adding an AI opponent to. The reason we wanted to do the Marketplace was to publish a few special edition miniatures to gauge the demand. Obviously marketing would have to happen first so I think this fits in with point 1 above.
The idea is not to give out 7777 packs. The thought was that we would allocate 777 (again, number TBD) which is 10% of the supply and distribute it amongst the Arbitrum community. The rest of the supply, 7000 would be minted out.
Thank you for the feedback!
This is definitely interesting and something we can look into doing first. The only thing that would need to happen here is implementing the multi-player functionality first, and marketing it to the gaming community as an invitational.
The only thing I would say here is we have a playable single player prototype that we are adding an AI opponent to. The reason we wanted to do the Marketplace was to publish a few special edition miniatures to gauge the demand. Obviously marketing would have to happen first so I think this fits in with point 1 above.
The idea is not to give out 7777 packs. The thought was that we would allocate 777 (again, number TBD) which is 10% of the supply and distribute it amongst the Arbitrum community. The rest of the supply, 7000 would be minted out.
I hope that addresses your points. Please let me know if there's any additional clarification I can offer.
I don't know much about games, but I have really appreciated the learnings from karel, dan, soby, and the gaming catalyst group. I do feel that I have zero expertise in gaming and would defer to these gaming experts. I would recommend checking out the framework presented at the last gaming catalyst call by Helika Gaming. This amount is in their first tier and so I'm inclined to support if the gaming experts do.
First thing first: i love the feeling. reminds me of alundra/chrono cross on the UI with a mix of the mechanics of strats turns rpg. The addition of cards makes me really interested in the product. That said, I don't have an extensive knowledge of gaming in web3, even tho i have spent more hours that I would like to admit on defi kingdom and a few others.
But i will frame the whole thing from a different standpoint.
First thing first: i love the feeling. reminds me of alundra/chrono cross on the UI with a mix of the mechanics of strats turns rpg. The addition of cards makes me really interested in the product. That said, I don't have an extensive knowledge of gaming in web3, even tho i have spent more hours that I would like to admit on defi kingdom and a few others.
But i will frame the whole thing from a different standpoint.
This is a development grant. Because you are asking for a grant not to incentives a product that already exists but to create one. It's not, as most think, a problem of gaming vs defi grant imho.
So far, these development grants have only been gone through (in my knowledge)
But they never went through the dao.
This is a gap that we have and that we need to address in general. It could be partially mitigated if the questbook program, now almost out of funds, will be renewed. But we need a development grant program for the dao. This is the can of worm you are opening with this request, and I am glad you are doing it because it's something we need to solve sooner rather than later.
My personal opinion of course.
Hi, I like these types of games, but I would change the order of implementation and payouts.
