I like the framework but it is unclear to me how much revenue a game, any game, could generate so it’s hard for me to see how much benefit we’ll get via MC and EH tokens at 7.5% and 2.5%.
Also, I agree with @Cryptolawyer that I expect all of this from MC already or I wouldn’t have bought it over say GF, YGG, Peelemos and others.
Do we know how the games will be funded? Is this pre-fund ,separate fund, or the treasury? Do we get cool NFTs?
Have a good day!
First of all, this proposal is well-intentioned. It completely opens up Merit Circle DAO’s approach to GameFi as a whole, not just to invest in and recruit guild players, but also as a game publisher. Such as GAMESTOP. And on this basis, every MC holder can enjoy the revenue brought by the game.
But I have the following doubts:
How did the development team decide on the game? Can a lower-level game development studio collaborate and enjoy Merit Circle DAO funding?
The development cycle of a game may require a long period of time from the development, launch and stable operation (profit) of a high-quality game. Is the fund of Merit Circle DAO sufficient to support this development cycle? Or will you do additional secondary funding for a single game development? I think there needs to be a lot of discussion about the development team and the development cycle and funding for the game, and the profit sharing for each game
Think it is a double-edged sword, which may make Merit Circle DAO become a monster or fail. In the bear market cycle, every project will face the problem of shortage of funds and fail before dawn, so in the use of funds, I think the Merit Circle DAO needs in-depth consideration.
Like YGG guild their founding partners, this is the game developers, so I believe that after the guild will walk on this road, not only investment game NFT and recruiting P2E players, more is how to become P2E game at the top of the vertical (which includes investment, launch, operation, P2E at an organic whole, the game infrastructure)
I’m excited to vote yes on this one. In short, I think we’re going to be the go-to laboratory for native Web3 game design—where the game and the ecosystem around the game are seamless. Maximal interoperability/composability via APIs. Deep integration of ownership/trading/betting/paying/borrowing/esports into core gameplay loops and the culture around a game.
I could be wrong, but the big marketplaces/exchanges/studios are just going to want to collect fees when you buy their skins and items in their marketplaces/exchanges/stores. Because they’re big, they will have to keep from providing too many overlapping services, and the game design may be stale and less viral. They are likely to generate too many weak Kickstarter-type cash grab games (Fractal?). Or they will take too long making non-interoperable AAA games with little value-add over traditional games and more barriers to entry for core gamers.
With interoperability and vertical integration, I think we can turn games like Go Fish into The World Series of Poker. Flappy Birds into 24/7 esports. Counter-Strike into…WAGMI. As a vertically integrated DAO (not a pure play guild, marketplace, or studio) we might be in a better position to build the monetary activity “around” a game. And I think a game’s marketcap will reflect the monetary activity “around” a game plus the monetary activity “within” the game.
One viral hit, and the devs will come. (A viral hit being something that Twitch and Twitter likes—and makes Twitch and Twitter want to get on the MC dashboard.) Most of the best game devs probably don’t want to start a Web3 company from scratch. They just want to make great games, or else they wouldn’t tolerate game studio working conditions. We just need to lower the barriers of game devs to quit/skip corporate jobs, and we have all the deal flow we want and more upside than pre-seed. And we will get some very viral, addictive, weird, and fun games.
I’m summoning all my wheat spirits on this folks.
Hi, this is Bailey from Defiance Capital.
100% in support of the proposed framework that aligns all stakeholders.
Would be happy to put my trust in Merit Circle’s core team to evaluate projects and make decisions on behalf of token holders as they have consistently executed. This new development will position Merit Circle to be a web3 games publisher and strong partners of upcoming games - further improving our brand.
The revenue split parameters could be revised in the future as the DAO evaluates the success of projects.
Thanks for the well written and conceptualised proposal.
First of all it really makes me proud to see that I wasnt wrong in investing in Merit Circle when I saw the promise of something more than just another GameFi Guild. I think many of the MC investors feel the same way.
I think it’s great to, next to the other investments already made, see Merit Circle movin in this direction and leveraging assets and relations into new ventures.
I fully support and applaud this proposal and cannot wait to see the progress and what’s next!
Yes. The DAO continues to show that value accrual for its members and contributors is a top priority. Also demonstrating that the best way to capture that value as a member is to be involved in all the ventures taken, i.e. staking MC AND holding EH NFT.
I wholeheartedly support this propsal. LFG
All efforts by the team in the direction of further investments is great. My only question is the role of the Edenhorde NFT holders in the renumeration / revenue share structure with these investments.
Edenhorde is an internal spinoff/project that should be treated as one of many 3rd party investment - it benefits from the MC community, but it doesn’t take part in the upside of the DAO’s other investments.
So why do you mix in the Edenhorde NFT holders in the revenue split?
Based on the above comments and after internal contemplation and discussion among the core contributors, I believe we should restrain from specifying the exact method of revenue distribution and the exact revenue split for now. In general, I think there is a consensus in the comments that both Edenhorde NFT holders and MC token-holders should benefit in some way. The way we do this could be the described method with the same split as in the above stated proposal, or a different method and/or split. By not specifying the exact details yet, we allow the DAO more time to find the best fit for financial incentivization based on: the exact game mechanics, internal ideas and feedback from the community.
For the avoidance of doubt, the proposal vote will limit itself to:
- Intention to move ahead with the new creative gaming project
- Mandate for the Merit Circle DAO to strike a high-level deal with the parties involved in the gaming project
- Intention to create a form of value distribution from gaming project for Edenhorde NFT holders and $MC tokenholders”
We are grateful to the Merit Circle DAO Core Contributors for putting forward another proposal.
We are happy to see the Merit Circle DAO beginning the work needed to start creating their own games, as has been hinted at by the team for some time now. This is a topic that will no doubt require further proposals, debate ,and analysis as game development progresses, but we are broadly happy with this framework proposal. We are especially happy to see the idea of ongoing revenue distribution to MC ecosystem participants (holders, stakers, Edenhorde holders) as the DAO’s ultimate aim should always be to add more value to the MC token and the treasury.
As well as points raised by other community members, some queries which we look forward to seeing addressed in future proposals include:
- How will game revenue be split and distributed? Options could be Ethereum, USDC, MC, other token
- If a game has a native in-game token (eg. SLP within Axie), or has NFT rewards, how are these considered as part of revenue?
- How do we protect the revenue distributions in favor of the DAO/community from centralized entities taking up a significant portion of the rewards?
- Will the funding come directly from the DAO Treasury USDC reserves?
- Are there any budget or time constraints for making a game? Depending on the level of game the DAO is considering, further funding rounds could be required, and we could be looking at months or even years of development to reach a finished product.
- How will the game(s) be marketed? Currently we require ongoing marketing resources for Merit Circle and Edenhorde. If we have further products developed will they require additional marketing? Or will marketing be drawn away from Merit Circle and Edenhorde?
Again these are issues we do not expect answers to now (as @tommyq mentioned, exact revenue distribution methods), but are simply points we would like to see addressed as progress is made.
We are keen on the idea that MC stakers (and now Edenhorde holders) continue to receive preferential spots in future whitelisting rounds for NFTs and potential Lands. We always want Merit Circle participants to feel rewarded for participating in the ecosystem. Having MC and Edenhorde holders participate as the first set of testers is also a nice gesture which the community would appreciate.
Overall we are happy to put our support behind this proposal and look forward to future proposals where clarity is reached on some of the points, both we and other community members have raised in this thread.
Signed with left paw,
Some studios/developers might not need funding for game development from us but might be interested in contracting with us to design game economies, use our other products (e.g. player dashboard), and write smart contracts. Any thoughts on offering a sliding equity scale based on our contribution to the game development budget? For example, if a studio 100% self-funds, but we design the economy, smart contracts, etc. we could take a 40%(?) equity stake. Some MC holders might be willing to have less equity in a new game in exchange for reduced risk to our treasury. I don’t want us to undervalue our services, though.
I will definitely vote YES, YES, YES for this proposal.
So excited to see how the DAO is evolving over time and creating an awesome community.
Grateful for being part of this from the very beginning.
All in with $MC, Edenhorde and whatever comes next.
I would like to second this. There will be even more demand for MC token if we implement requirement of minimum holding for next projects, whitelists, etc.
Please consider this option. I discussed this with Mark already before, but guess its better to share this idea on forum.
Sad Cat is on point as usual.
The overall premise of the entire proposal is an exciting prospect, one that will accrue value for the DAO in perpetuity. The future looks very promising. I will be voting YES for this proposal to move forward in its current state as a general framework.
The specific nuances will need to be fleshed out, as alluded to by other governance participants.
A more thorough discussion should provide clarity on the funding sources, technical details, financial splits with developers, expectations of said games, future development costs, and revenue splits, to merely name a few. These financial metrics and splits should be discussed and agreed upon on a project-by-project basis.
Moreover, I would like to suggest that exchanges, I.E. Binance should be prevented from receiving said revenue splits on all future $MC in-house projects. Reasons can be discussed and debated in a future proposal.
I will be voting yes on this proposal, very exiciting developments are starting to come out of and expand the DAO. Others have already pointed out some good points that need clarification and I’m sure these will be addressed in time. I think it would be good to get some clarification asap on how this is to be funded i.e. will it be from the treasury? Will it be from seed funding? Or will there be some other type of financing?
Overall it is an exciting proposal and I look forward to seeing how it develops.
SadCatCapital has repeated what I said, which is exactly what I wanted to say above, in support of your proposal.
Sounds good, try new stuff.
The funding seems a bit open ended (what if the game needs more money post-launch, and also, who controls the treasury of the game to ensure the revenue sharing split is executed, etc) but I’m sure you guys can think through and handle.
Please go ahead and create a crypto candy crash.
Thank you Merit Circle team for another interesting proposal. Great to see ongoing revenue distribution proposals to MC ecosystem participants.
I will be voting “yes” to this proposal, and I look forward to seeing more proposals regarding these topics in the future.
Why have we not voted on this yet? It’s a no-brainer and should have been passed 6 days ago.
It would be great if escrowed MCs (EMCs) can count towards earning preferential spots in future whitelisting rounds for NFT drops, so there’s added incentives for long-term stakers and utility to claimed locked rewards.
The proposal has been revised (bold text) based on the comments. The vote is now online, please issue your vote here: