A token for Gnosis Protocol

Knowledge Base Archive
21

Yes, a token allows good homogeneity within a ptojet and allows it to advance better to the breasts of its users

22

I’m a GNO holder, and I would favor the new/separate token for Cowswap, for many of the reasons articulated above. Not least in my view is the necessesity of that token, its brand identification, and so on to get the ecosphere excited about Cowswap and its effective MEV-mitigation mechanism.

As to the value for GNO token holders:

  1. i think Cowswap success, and making Ethereum better, is incentive consistent with Gnosis Protocol objectives
  2. i believe that any of several ways to give value to GNO token holders could work (from @mkoeppelmann’s list)
  3. i’m pretty confident in this team, both at the Gnosis level and at Koeppelmann level, in looking after the interests of both GNO peeps and Cowswap LPs, Solvers, and other facilitators, while advancing the overall broad social and technical benefits to the entire Ethereum ecosphere.
1 Like
23

I think the launch of Cowswap governance token is necessary and will benefit the development of Cowswap itself. It can be used to incentivize traders. Through transaction incentives, user activity and transaction scale will be greatly improved, and part of the token will be used for Early traders of airdrops can refer to dydx, through token incentives to reach a daily trading volume of $1 billion, and the user scale will be greatly increased.

1 Like
24

I think governance tokens should be issued, which can be airdropped to poAP holders, because POAP holders are always paying attention to the project, can complete tasks in a special time, and get POAP, they are also project supporters!

25

we need cow token.Best time now.

26

That’s good idea. I hope the dex the best to cex , and used NFT

1 Like
27

Definitely a token with incentives for users to hold / stake / provide liquidity is a great idea

1 Like
28

I think 1inch and Uniswap airdrops are good models for other exchanges. Both tokens have traded in a very healthy manner after the distribution to early network participants

1 Like
29

I suggest ticker name MOO instead of COW since the cow sounds are so epic when trading. It honestly makes me want to use the dex more on top of the great way it works

3 Likes
30

For those bounty hunters, I think it’s best to use brightid to verify airdrops.
This allows you to filter the accounts of many fake bounty hunters.

31

I am very happy to discuss such things with everyone!

32

A bit late to the conversation but as a long-term follower of Gnosis and very active user of several DeFi projects, I would suggest to separate tokens for each protocol/product.

First, there is definitely a “stigma” towards $GNO because of lack of narrative as you mentioned @mkoeppelmann, so better to keep it separated when launching a new product. However, if a clearer direction of GNO can be established, the community should look into following Synthetixs approach of spinning of projects. But for this GP and GNO needs to position itself as something like a “Ethereum Incubator” or something similar considering the products you already released.

With Synthetix, the narrative is very clear: staking SNX as collateral to mint sUSD. This narrative is clear, has rewarded many users and managed to build a great community of DeFi OGs. Since then, they have released a bunch of products and are now in the process of separating some of their products to their own individual projects (with strong ties to Synthetix obviously). Thales and Lyra recently spun off and are showing good signs of community development and token structures/distribution, all while maintaining strong ties to their “launchpad” Synthetix.

This is something GP could do but would require a strong(er) narrative of the protocol. If we look at CowSwap, there is not that much from previous GP products that is directly supporting the mission of CowSwap (correct me if Im wrong please). So if a clear GP narrative is missing, I would tend to separate CowSwap into its own token while maintaining ties to GP. GP is definitely a seal of approval for all early Ethereum users.

With that in mind, it would make most sense to reward anyone actively participating into the CowSwap community and we already heard a few good initiatives:

  1. early users of CowSwap (based on trades/volume but with limit towards whales)
  2. POAP for participation in testing, community calls, etc
  3. airdrop GNO holders (similar to SNX)

In any case, loving the conversation here and looking forward to more on this!

4 Likes
33

yeee, i am very happy and cant wait:)

34

Yes, a cowswap specific token is the way to go

35

I think 1inch and Uniswap airdrops are good models for other exchanges. Both tokens have traded in a very healthy manner after the distribution to early network participants

36

@mkoeppelmann This is an extension to option 2, airdrop to GNO-holders:

Ve-assets (Curve) has the best tokenomics design in our industry that would allow to flourish a whole ecosystem around a parent token like GNO.
Several projects have recently implemented this model like iceCREAM, veFXS, vKP3r, and oSUSHI

In a similar fashion, we could have veGNO, a non-transferable token minted from the long term staking of GNO.
1 GNO locked for 4 years = 1 veGNO
1 GNO locked for 3 years = 0.75 veGNO
1 GNO locked for 2 years = 0.5 veGNO
1 GNO locked for 1 years = 0.25 veGNO

We could implement rewards to veGNO holders like GP token weekly airdrops, GP fees, discounts, bribes and eventually other projects token airdrops.
Only people who are aligned with the long term success of GNO would get the benefits

I see 2 main drawbacks for this model:
-Reduced supply increases asset volatility
-Capital inefficiency for having a locked asset

Aave understood these issues very well and they designed stkAaave. Stkaave is an staked representation of an Aave/eth 80/20 Balancer pool that acts as an insurance layer for the protocol (Safety Module) and accrues rewards for locking the tokens. Stkaave somehow reduces the supply while maintaining a healthy level of Aave liquidity.

If we commit to provide long term liquidity to GNO and ETH on a 80/20 Balancer pool, we might be able to get the positive effects from both Curve and Aave’s models:

1 BPT (X ETH+1GNO) locked for 4 years = 1 longGNO
1 BPT (X ETH+1GNO) locked for 3 years = 0.75 longGNO
1 BPT (X ETH+1GNO) locked for 2 years = 0.5 longGNO
1 BPT (X ETH+1GNO) locked for 1 years = 0.25 longGNO

GNO holders are natural ETH holders, so holding both tokens should not be an issue.
This way we could have the ve-assets long term benefits with a healthy and liquid GNO market. Gnosis partnership with Balancer would be also be strengthened

4 Likes
37

I like the ve-asset proposal for GNO.

I agree that for many DAOs with a long-term vision of x-years, they are better off by introducing x-year lock periods, as you describe. They benefit as:

  1. They align communities on the long-term rather on the short-term.
  2. Governance decisions are better, as they are done with a focus on long-term success rather shortterm gains.
  3. It allows smaller players, who don’t have soo much GNO, to leverage their impact by commiting and locking tokens.

Due to these reasons, I believe that GNO should also introduce veGNO or longGNO. But I am having a little bit of doubt that this introduction of veGNO or longGNO can be done before the GP-token launch.

On the other hand you are right @claberus, that if we the GNODAO community wants to build a community with longGNO holders, new tokenrelease are perfect times, where people would want to lock down their GNO in order to get a bigger share of the newly issued tokens.

3 Likes
38

I really like this proposal.

Do you know if Aave allows both, simple locking of the token and locking of pool tokens or only locking of pool tokens?

Maybe we can piggyback on Aave’s code and reduce implementation time on our end.

1 Like
39

Yes, Aave allows both. Stkaave has a cooldown period of 10 days so it doesn’t get the benefits of a long term non-transferable token.

40

@calberus
Certainly an interesting option.
I am a bit torn apart - on the one hand, I am certainly all for “long-term incentives” on the other hand I think the “option to exit” is also important. Specifically, GnosisDAO has a lot of freedom regarding what it could do/ how it could develop. With projects like Curve it seems quite well defined what they are trying to accomplish - with Gnosis the spectrum of activities is much broader (Safe, GP, Zodiac, Gnosis Auction, Conditional Token, Open Ethereum, Yield farming, Ideas around OWL… (just to mention a few)). So with likely Safe and GP spinning out the range of possibilities where to put focus next is large. In such a situation it also feels problematic to let people commit to GNO without knowing the direction the project will take.

So I think the very least that would be required is some understanding that if major decisions are made (that potential chance the direction of Gnosis/GNO) GnosisDAO should offer something like a fair “rage quit”. Something along the lines that those who vote against a specific proposal can get an option to sell even locked GNO if the DAO decides against their vote.

1 Like