# What Could Go Wrong?

- **Player Attention Defecit**
- This game requires participation - people to man the grant ships, referees to manage the game, and a community to vote and give feedback signal. There is a possibility that we don't have enough people to fill all the roles required for the game to be played.
- **Referee Attention Defecit**
- Referees play a larger role in this design than it did in the previous design. We need to ensure that the refs are engaged and ready to coordinate.
- **Unforeseen technical issues with integrations**
- We're stitching together at least 3 protocols, and it's difficult to predict if the integrations will work as expected.
- **High Feedback Latency**
- We have an open Vote Modification system that happens off-chain. While we can be transparent with how we arrive at these allocation numbers, we have to tweak these numbers to achieve our desired outcome over time. The issue is that the time required for funding rounds is pretty long, so we don't have many iteration steps for tweaking parameters.

## How do we mitigate for that?

- **Effective promotion and hype building.** We will run a dev log, make regular updates on multiple channels and tap our network for retweets, guest podcast appearances and other promotion opportunities.
- **Clear rules and rhythm.** The gitbook rulebook will include a plan to keep referees clear on what they need to do and when they need to do it, with a (weekly?) rhythm that our team supports and encourages.
- **Proof of concept.** Phase 1 includes proof of concept code for key integrations. We have contacts to make direct communication with protocol teams.
- **Transparency** Our dev log and promotion agenda will give us a platform to share results and get feedback on our design choices.
- **Project Voting** We want voters to vote on project outcomes, and aggregate that signal to grant ships. We hope to accomplish this by linking Hypercerts through Allo and having project votes equate to votes for the funding grant ships.