GIP-107: Should the GnosisDAO form, in addition to the Gnosis Asset Holdings I Foundation, a legal conduit to continue to foster Gnosis´ decentralization goals?

[Karpatkey]

Hey @staworth thanks for your questions:

@staworth

• Who’s the person/team behind this proposal? I see the same account posted GIP-96, which was a win-win solution to use the legal conduit to hold illiquid investments. Is there also crossover with those behind GIP-91 and GIP-94?
• Does this proposal have any involvement or support from other key figures in the DAO, like Gnosis LTD or karpatkey? Or otherwise, is this the first communication about these plans, or have there been other discussions before putting this proposal before the DAO?

Karpatkey and Gnosis LTD are aware of this proposal. Karpatkey supports it and was involved through the process of defining some details, after getting some legal consultation. We are not behind it, but we agree that is the best way for the DAO to manage to get access to the sort of services listed on the proposal.

@staworth

From an initial read through, it feels like this could be a solution that’s lacking a problem. Are any of below purposes particularly needed for current work/initiatives? Or is the intention simply to prepare so we have the options available, should the need arise?

It’s both. There are some initiatives that we would like to pursue, and using this ops foundation should enable. For example, it’s in our mandate to provide liquidity for GNO throughout many markets. Historically, we have done so in DeFi, but main transaction volumes are coming from CeFi venues, where we can’t engage due to the lack of an entity.

The establishment of the Ops Foundation will also give us greater legal certainty when it comes to engaging vendors, contractors/employees and partners on tasks for the DAO. This is crucial for the smooth operation of the DAO’s activities and for protecting its interests with third parties. We therefore believe that the Ops Foundation can help the DAO structure its operations in a way that enhances efficiency but also provides a level of operational resilience and legal protection that is difficult to achieve through a decentralized and informal approach. This could apply to existing work/initiatives, as well as to future work proposals involving an ongoing contractual relationship with the DAO.

@staworth

The last two questions are generally driving at understanding: (i) whether a Caymans Foundation is the right decision? and (ii) whether now is the right time to do this?

Once a foundation is established, the cost and difficulty of altering the DAO’s legal structure increases. It’s not a decision to rush lightly into, and so the first two questions look to understand who’s behind this work stream. Is this a case of the barber telling us we need a haircut? Or is this proposal the culmination of cross-party efforts to address a genuine need?

These are valid points, as we said, both Gnosis LTD and karpatkey were aware of this proposal. karpatkey supports this, and we will make sure of keeping the operations transparent for community scrutiny.