Aavegotchi aims to be one of the top Play2Earn projects in the crypto gaming space, being the launch of the Gotchiverse Realm the cornerstone to achieving this long-term goal. However, there is room for improving the short-term possibilities through seasonal gaming events. The main problem is the lack of structure and funds. As suggested before by @CoyoteDev, @rootdraws and @ricJones_Grizzy, with a dedicated Aarcade DAO, composed by a trusted group of aarchitects, it would be possible to organize rewarding periodic events and support the active growth of the development community. That would lead to a more extensive and better quality series of mini-games.
Although this may sound like a lot of work, it could be initiated with something very simple, like allocating a budget from the main DAO funds to stake and generate FRENS. Those could be then transformed into raffle tickets and given away to mini-game players through periodic events.
To read previous discussions about other incentives or payment systems suitable for an Aarcade type of structure, please check this thread:
This thread is meant to start a conversation and gather opinions/ideas about the topic, so please feel free to share your thoughts!
So receiving funds from the main DAO, the AarcadeDAO can stake those GHST to generate FRENS, which in turn can be exchanged for raffle tickets. Those tickets can then be distributed as prizes correct?
At the same time, we can maintain the pay2play/ free2play fee structure, depending on what choice the dev/team chooses.
The collected fees can then be divided as some portions goes to rewards, some goes for development team and some goes to AarcadeDAO treasury
That would be awesome! Even if we reach the point where many people want to develop new games, the Aarcade DAO could allocate certain budget per season to sponsor new content creation. Bottom line, IMHO we should start building the structure needed to grow in this direction earlier rather than later.
Yeah I love the idea of a sub-DAO / Committee for the Aarcade. The FRENS Committee already got a lot of support from the community, but I think that was just the beginning. Definitely makes sense to let select groups manage smaller parts of the ecosystem with dedicated funds. Has my support!
I love this idea and would really enjoy contributing to the committee. What do you think about the following as a pilot test:
The DAO Treasury stakes 110,000 GHST (out of its current 557k) on Aavegotchi to earn FRENS
The FRENS are used to buy 300 Drop Tickets and 6 Godlike tickets every 30 days
The 300 drop tickets are designated as rewards for everyone in the top 50 across the 6 minigames (50 drop tix/game)
The monthly winners across each minigame are rewarded with a Godlike ticket in addition to the drop ticket
This will incentivize ongoing engagement with the minigames and the platform while not incurring a net loss from the DAO Treasury
The dilution of FRENS/tickets is acceptable in that actively engaged community members are reaping the benefits
Currently if the raffles are ongoing then it would be a good idea.
However staking all the treasury to FRENS does not seem a good idea. IMO its too risky as treasury.
Curious what you think the risk of single-staking GHST is? The contracts are solid and tbh if they were to be hacked, I think the losses would be much greater than just the DAO treasury.
I would also like to propose that we have not have significant overlap in membership between this committee and the FRENS committee. There may be some conflicts of interest or opportunities for exploitation if there were large voting blocks represented in both. A committee between 11-15 members, similar to the FRENS committee, should have no more than 2 members overlap. I do see some potential benefit to have line of sight into other committee’s projects and decision making process, which is why up to two should be allowed. Thoughts?
im all for creation of Sub-DAO’s to make things more Efficient, doing every single decisions via forum post > snapshot voting takes too much time and effort for every single thing.
I think we should define
how we should assess minigames,
How we should vote and
Also voting structure so that it can also represent the choice of the AavegotchiDAO community.
Agreed that FRENS committee should remain largely insulated from this committee. One or two crossovers could make sense from a communication point of view.
Would this committee be responsible for vetting games for the Aarcade? If so, the scope of that responsibility should be pretty well-defined before a SigProp goes up. For example, does the DAO actually hand-pick games that are submitted? Or does it simply manage which games are in the Aarcade at any given time and what events take place for each game?
In my opinion , the Aarcade DAO/Committee should be responsible for vetting minigames that fits the requirements for being included into Aarcade.
Devs can like make a trial game and publish that on their own. It is just it won’t be distributing rewards and charging players for fees.
The requirement currently is that it needs to have server validation or anti cheat mechanism.
In the future the DAO/Committee may also determine the funding the devs need to distribute rewards in their games.
if there are any more , welcome to put in
Just another thought for generating further frens for the AarcadeDAO and also categorising potential games is to introduce a stake based tier subscription for users. Eg:
Tier 1 - Stake 10 GHST allows access to smaller more experimental mini games
Tier 2 - Stake 50 GHST also allows access to more developed mini games that earn XP/rewards
Tier 3 - Stake 100 GHST also allows access to mini games the AarcadeDAO have heavily vetted and offer most rewards, xp etc.
The idea is that we don’t restrict dev’s from having playable games in the Aarcade (as long as they meet basic server validation and anti-cheat mechanics) but we do offer levels of categorization that are easily filterable for users. Effectively making a library of A, AA and AAA games. It will be up to the AarcadeDAO to determine what category a game should be ranked at depending on player usage, reward mechanics etc.
To prevent people from staking/unstaking just for specific game access we could introduce a 1 ghst fee to unstake, similar to what some of the pet-operators do.
I hope it will be chosen!