I would strongly and respectfully urge Lucky Friday, ChaosDAO, and any undecided voters to carefully observe the facts of this matter. Voting AYE would restrict the experts of the DOT Play bounty from acting freely in their mission of build the strongest Gaming vertical in the industry.

1. It is false to claim that the Mythos Foundation has already received Treasury Funding. Whether current voters agree or not, voters of [Ref. 643](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/643) agreed on a **TRADE** of 1M DOT for 20M MYTH. This was not a grant or funding but a trade. The Mythos Foundation owes the Polkadot treasury nothing more than deploying on Polkadot - which they are successfully doing today.

2. DOT Play's stated intention is to launch games where they are best suited. Many seem to be coming to terms with the mistake of sharding too early with new calls for consolidation! When it makes sense to these experts to deploy a game on Mythical - and certainly to deploy assets in the Mythical Marketplace or D-Market - it would be a tragedy to have these artificial limitations in place.

3. How anyone could say Mythical's success has fallen short is beyond me. They are often the top gaming blockchain by sales volume, transactions, and certainly active users. It will also now lead the ecosystem in transactions - and the D-Market (5 times larger) isn't even onboarded yet. If by success people mean Market Cap - it may be worth noting that as a Proof of Authority network, Mythical did not have access to the most popular Exchanges on the planet. This will no longer be the case. **Pudgy Penguin** announcing the launch of their own chain (something that was in the works before the announcement of the game with Mythical) has no effect on Game Development as far as I understand. Flippant speculation in these matters should not be taken seriously.  

4. Finally, its worth remembering that DOT Play is making the treasury a recipient of revenue share agreements with the games they launch - regardless of where. I would strongly encourage voters to check there expertise before limiting the potential growth of Polkadot and our treasury.

[@Jay Chrawnna](12WWjrZGuVxyk5AyFeDGaN45J1FJ6MesXRxhmY41rhKxL961-polkadot) 

Hey Jay, 

As an undecided voter i want to offer my perspective

I also hope you take a step back and observe all the facts of the matter, you are a great advocate to Polkadot and appreciate a lot of people's hopes and dreams of this eco rely on Mythical so i can understand your view given your position. 

1) They have already received funding from the treasury please see [Here](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/469) when they needed funding to set up an entity, why does a company that has raised so much capital need to do this? 
2) This follows onto a second larger point, Mythical has raised [$300M From External investors](https://crypto-fundraising.info/projects/mythical-games) this does not include numerous recent sales of the Mythos token from its treasury to VCs at a discount from the market price, including the Polkadot treasury, so you may need to ask yourself how does a company burn through that much capital and have to now rely on these methods, With lets be honest not that much to show for it in the grand schemes of things given the amount raised, and yes you can point to some on chain metrics (which we all know can be easily botted) but ultimately what matters is being able to be cash flow positive as a business and being sustainable which they are not after 5 years, thus there could be questions asked that are they coming to Polkadot purely on the promise to receive never-ending funding from the treasury. Every Business/project/blockchain needs to be able to generate cash and stand on its own two feet. If their games e.g. NFL Rivals can not generate enough cash to cover their costs at the company then perhaps the business needs to rethink their model. 
3) Scytale spent a large amount of their fund investing in a prior round of Mythos so we understand they need mythical to be a success and are pushing with all their might to get every bit of funding they can for the project. Which is fair, but also creates Moral Hazard that the Treasury should not necessarily be taking on. 
4) Signum growth also invested into the round alongside Scytale but not to the same scale as a % of their fund but this still creates a conflict of interest with the bounty given Angies position. 

So i would ask you to not just focus on the Mythos chain in your metrics of success but the parent company which is the ultimate beneficiary of this funding. 

I sincerely hope they do manage to bring some life into the eco and turn themselves into a profitable company that does not need the treasury as every business should, but at this stage, I fear the risks way too heavily on the treasury, why don't we wait and see the impact they have and what they deliver to the eco before giving them any more funding? And if they do become a success then maybe the bounty should be used to attract new games and chains building on Polkadot vs creating a monopoly. 

Hope you can appreciate this perspective and helps you see all the facts of the matter



[@15rX...o7Fr](15rXuoExPqaYD8g56KmDBv41iSiyK1uAkr8apMUo68Mho7Fr-polkadot) 

Hello anon. 

Although part of my response addressed the funding fud (and yes voters at the time - for some reason - agreed to pay 16k DOT to set up the foundation that we later used to acquire 20M MYTH worth 1.687M DOT at confirmation)...

The troubling demand in this Wish for Change that we need to pay attention to is: "The request of this referendum is that the curators of Bounty 38 should not be allowed to fund anything related to mythical"

It's not about giving Mythical **more funding** but restricting publishing games if they are in any way **related** to Mythical.

Although OP argues in the name of diversification, this would be a grave mistake we've already made - Sharding too early.

Rather, I advocate to let the elected experts do what they feel is right to make a strong gaming vertical. The likes of which will be used to attract other gave developers to our Tech stack.

It should be noted that there is no hint that DOT Play will use exclusively Mythical tech - Nick, one of the founders, is also a founder of Ajuna (as is Cedric, an advisor). But if this were to pass, a game launched on Ajuna, Moonbeam, or Unique may not be able to have their assets on Mythical Marketplace or D-Market.

Hope that provides clarity on what we're voting on here.

There is the risk that in future an excessive amount of treasury funds may be directed towards mythical. While it is obvious that the partnership between Polkadot and mythical is extremely beneficial to both parties, allowing mythical to process a number of transactions that would be impossible on any other chain and allowing Polkadot to showcase its technical prowess we also have to remain open to many other future partnerships and not exclusively focus on mythical. Mythical will already receive 1 million DOT from treasury in exchange for an airdrop of mythical token. This is of course great for both parties to solidify a winning partnership. However if we want to become the biggest platform for games we also have to be welcoming to other games, that's why Games Bounty \[38\] was created. I think it is important in order to allow fair competition and multiple opportunities to ensure that games bounty is not going to be used to fund activities related to mythical but instead focus on other games so that we can welcome diversity and competition. The request of this referendum is that the curators of Bounty 38 should not be allowed to fund anything related to mythical for the reasons I explained above

- Polkadot and Mythical have a good partnership.  
- Mythical can do many transactions on Polkadot.  
- Polkadot shows its tech skills with Mythical.  
- Mythical gets 1 million DOT for their tokens.  
- Polkadot wants to work with other games too.  
- Games Bounty 38 helps fund other games.  
- Bounty 38 should not fund Mythical to keep things fair.  
- More games mean more competition and diversity.

remark

Rejected

Submitted

DecisionStarted

DecisionDepositPlaced

wish_for_change

WHO: The curators of Bounty 38.

WHAT: Not fund anything related to Mythical.

PRICE/TIMEFRAME/RESOURCES: Not specified.

Restricting games bounty (38) from investing in games related to mythical

root

whitelisted_caller

staking_admin

treasurer

lease_admin

fellowship_admin

general_admin

auction_admin

referendum_canceller

referendum_killer

small_tipper

big_tipper

small_spender

medium_spender

big_spender

Origin able to dispatch a whitelisted call.

Origin for signaling that the network wishes for some change

Origin able to cancel slashes and manage minimum commission.

Origin for spending up to 10,000,000 DOT from the treasury as well as generally administering it.

Origin for managing the composition of the fellowship.

Origin able to spend around 250 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 1,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 10,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 100,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend up to 1,000,000 DOT from the treasury at once.