Hi! I’m looking to try and find out more information about the team and background for this proposal before finalising my vote, but have found very little publicly-available information.
With respect, without more information, it’s quite hard to discern what separates this proposal from an anonymous group raiding the treasury for $20m to fund their new venture.
I am quite reluctant to commit to paying $400k in 2% management fees per year for 7 years to 4 members of an investment committee without any information on their investing credentials or role in the DAO/ecosystem. There’s been no historic engagement from the poster, who joined the date of this post. I’m also struggling to find information about the other 3 fee recipient members of the committee, let alone any historic engagement. It may just be my own ignorance, but more information is definitely needed to make this a strong standalone proposal.
Can I suggest the team provide answers to the following additional questions:
-
Provide a brief description of each member of the team behind this proposal and/or the investment committee, including their previous involvement with the Gnosis ecosystem, their previous experience in venture capital and links to public profiles/publications for further reading.
-
Please describe the process by which the team members, investment committee and advisors were selected. Please clearly indicate which elements are public and private, and which involve some oversight by Gnosis (and by which individuals/functions).
-
Please explain how the proposers arrived at a $40m total for the fund, and a $20m contribution from Gnosis and external LPs respectively. Do the proposers have other external LPs lined up or in the works? And if not, how confident are the proposers in their ability to line up external LPs, and what happens if they fail?
I would also expect to see a more detailed term sheet published in due course, as the details in the post are really very minimal. In particular, it will be vital for Gnosis DAO to understand what recourse it has in the event that its investment is mismanaged or otherwise at risk.
Until more information is provided, I’m provisionally voting “Against” GIP-102. Though I think venture investments for the Gnosis ecosystem is potentially an excellent idea, the execution of this proposal so far concerns me. I hope to be promptly proven wrong!
Edit: following comments from Stefan explaining the involvement and support of Gnosis LTD, I’m content to support this proposal in its current form. I look forward to the community call to hear more.