Decentralized Organization

The road to become a Decentralized Organization considering the version of the game will be.

As avid gamers, we discerned an opportunity for a fresh social contract among participants in the gaming realm. Within this framework, players, designers, engineers, and creators collaborate guided by shared duties and incentives. We're convinced that a paradigm shift is overdue, erasing the conventional lines between creators and players, empowering all to shape, nurture, refine, safeguard, and reap rewards from joint endeavors. Our conviction is that these efforts should remain unhampered by intermediary gatekeepers (like publishers, online stores), who limit access via distribution channels.In essence, we champion fair communities as the bedrock of our gaming future, actively advancing to showcase their potential. We deem this the path to crafting enduring, gratifying, and above all, incredibly enjoyable games!

The Community Treasury

We have designed the Treasury to be directly influenced by all holders of GVT tokens. This implies that, going forward, we anticipate GVT token holders to oversee the allocation and utilization of these resources. For instance, they may choose to utilize them for:

• Supplement token staking rewards.

• Reduce the total long-term supply of GVT (i.e., burning GVT).

• Invest in new activities/initiatives that improve the overall community experience.

• Establish resource councils or working groups to carry out strategically important projects.

When considering the overall governance of Orbeast Fantasy and the Community Treasury, we believe it is important to practice progressive decentralization.

The Progressive Decentralization

We define progressive decentralization as a deliberate and gradual process we are committed to, aiming to facilitate active partnership and ownership among an increasingly diverse community. In essence, our ultimate commitment is to fully empower any willing participant to contribute and reap the benefits of their contributions within our ecosystem.

In the early stages of decentralization, a select group of founding members bears the primary responsibility for guiding the community, developing the collaborative product, and establishing a framework for broader participation. They also keep a keen eye out for signs of community engagement and progress.

In the later stages of decentralization, the collective as a whole assumes the primary responsibility for mutual guidance, with everyone working together to advance the community's well-defined mission. This is achieved through self-organization within a context of clear expectations, conventions, and social norms that are easily understood.

Why is this important?

Jesse Waldron, a member of the Variant Fund, has presented a useful framework to outline the progressive decentralization stages. Upon a brief examination, it's evident that we are still in the early phases, focused on establishing the fundamental "product-market fit" for our products. This term refers to a product's ability to consistently grow and meet large-scale needs. One key indicator of product-market fit is achieving a weekly growth rate of at least 5%.

In Jesse Walden's words, "During this early phase, the sole focus is on achieving product-market fit. To expedite this process, it's crucial to avoid decision-making by committee (or the community!). A product requires decisive leadership to test hypotheses and adapt quickly."

We have formed a core team responsible for leading product development and making most decisions related to the game's progress. This approach enables us to rapidly build and refine our path toward achieving product-market fit.

Furthermore, Vitalik Buterin has recently addressed the challenges associated with current community governance models in Web 3. In his own words:

• “Small groups of wealthy participants ("whales") are better at successfully executing decisions than large groups of small-holders". This is because of the tragedy of the commons among small-holders: each small-holder has only an insignificant influence on the outcome, and so they have little incentive to vote. Even if there are rewards for voting, there is little incentive to research and think carefully about what they are voting for.

• Coin voting governance empowers coin holders and coin holder interests at the expense of other parts of the community: protocol communities are made up of diverse constituencies that have many different values, visions and goals. Coin voting, however, only gives power to one constituency (coin holders, and especially wealthy ones), and leads to over-valuing the goal of making the coin price go up even if that involves harmful rent extraction.

• Conflict of interest issues: giving voting power to one constituency (coin holders), and especially over-empowering wealthy actors in that constituency, risks over-exposure to the conflicts-of-interest within that particular elite (eg. investment funds or holders that also hold tokens of other DeFi platforms that interact with the platform in question).”

A cursory examination of Snapshot.io underscores the rudimentary nature of Web 3's voting infrastructure. Even for the most extensive projects on the platform, voter participation typically remains confined to a few hundred individuals.

When we do implement a governance system, our aim is for it to be substantive and impactful. We have yet to witness such characteristics in the current models and believe that it will require time, iteration, and experimentation to develop a robust model that is not only airtight but also minimizes the potential for abuse.

• The introduction of "GVT points" as a voting weight modifier. This approach entails considering one's contributions to the ecosystem in addition to their GVT ownership when determining voting weight. We are presently exploring the possibility of implementing a non-transferable badge system to establish a robust framework around this concept.

• The establishment of player-driven councils designed to ensure diverse opinions and recommendations from specialists play a pivotal role in shaping key proposals' creation and structure.

• Quadratic voting, a system where voters have limited voting power and must judiciously allocate this power. For instance, staking GVT could lead to the gradual accumulation of non-transferable voting power for the staker, which would be expended when influencing the outcome of a proposal. This introduces a market dynamic into the voting process.

Stage 1: Token generation event

At the beginning, no voting will be possible.

Stage 2: Staking dashboard released

At this point, GVT holders will be able to stake their tokens through the staking dashboard and participate in governance votes brought forward by the Nova-Tech Team.

These votes will revolve around which teams should receive funding from the ecosystem fund, and how the available Community Treasury (the remaining part after deducting the non-fixed percentage allocated to development and reinvestment of the game) should be distributed.

Stage 3: Dex governance start

Growing for the previous version, more on-chain votes about smaller issues will be possible. Potentially changing the way votes are being counted from 1 token 1 vote to Quadratic voting.

Stage 4: Dex governance rise

Finally, GVT holders will be able to determine which governance framework should be used and how much should be voted on. Some decisions will not be up for debate such as token supply which is iron-clad in smart contracts.

Voting examples

Some examples of situations that the GVT holders will be able to vote on include “How should the Community Treasury be used to reward GVT holders and the broader Orbeast community?” or “Should the Community Treasury funds be attached to any yield farming/staking services such as examplefinance.com?”.