Thanks for the clarification! Last time I interacted manually with my gnosis pay safe was the day I received the card to remove an owner I had manually added before. Now I am no even a signer anymore…Although I understand that funds that will be used by the card needs protection I don’t understand why this applies to all tx. The way it works now looks not very self-custodial;-)
2 Likes
It is self-custodial but there is the delay module between your wallet and the Safe basically. In details, your wallet owns and controls the delay module who owns the Safe (you can check the setup on the Zodiac app by opening your Safe on the Safe app), and you are also the one controlling limits (much can be spent with the card). That setup adds a 3 minute delays to all transactions except card payments, that modules setup is what enables your Gnosis Card to remain self custodial while also avoiding risks like double spending and so on… Anyway if you have more questions about Gnosis Pay, let’s chat on Discord or Telegram! 
1 Like
But surely if self staking is more attractive (as I am sure it should be since it provides a lot of value to the network) then my question as a staker wouldn’t be whether I should buy more GNO for the card it would be whether I should buy and run more validators …
So I end up having low rewards on the card and so I don’t use it much despite personally contributing to the function of the card’s network.
Seems insane to me that stakers wouldn’t be able to use their staked GNO to gain card rewards.
I’ll do the maths I suppose but I will most likely unstake all my GNO and stop running validators OR continue validating but not use the card if rewards do not account for validator’s staked GNO.
(no opinion on LST)
1 Like
I understand what you’re saying, but from my point of view, the key factor of the cashback card is that you unlock additional rewards on your spending. A simple example. (Please correct me if I am wrong in my assumption).
Let’s say you have 1000€ spending per month. You buy 10 GNO and get 3% cashback per month on the 1000€. So it’s 30€ Rewards per month.
The same 10 GNO would currently generate approx. 150€ per year as a validator, i.e. 12.50€ per month. So the Cashback wins in this scenario.
However, since you can only “scale” the cashback or your expenses to a certain extent, it still makes sense to continue running validators. Depending on how high your exposure to GNO generally is or you want to be. It is therefore a very individual consideration.
2 Likes
Appreciate the maths, but I think it just highlights the problem.
So in my case I would stick with unstaking and shutting down my validators, saving electricity cost and going for full cashback on the card for more rewards. I assume this would be the case for a lot of people unless you run massive amounts of validators.
Doesn’t seem like a great scenario for the ecosystem or decentralisation of the chain …
(I do support the cashback just arguing that staked GNO should be included)
2 Likes
Fair enough. However, I think it’s unlikely that many validators will go out. For my part, I will at least do both and will be happy about higher rewards if you are right and the number of validators drops.
But even if a lot of validators do leave, fortunately the cashback system is limited in time. There is at least the option that they will come back afterwards (with more GNO in their pockets) and we will have more validators than before.
In general I would also welcome LST GNO and the extra rewards too, but I think protecting the community and the GNO system is more important. And that includes not always giving out as much GNO as possible, but being protective with Token and price.
in my opinion a good compromise could be to accept lst gno evaluating a percentage of cashback. It is equivalent to 1 gno in which you will receive 80% of the estimated cashback amount
1 Like
do you think gno within a validator should be considered in general or only LST GNO? If it’s both it remains a question how to prove it, if you use different addresses for your validators and the card.
edit: curious if voting participation will catch up…
1 Like
Both, for sure in the beginning just verifying only the wallet associated to gnosis pay safe.
1 Like
Hello,
First of all thank you for studying and drafting the proposal.
I’m definitely in favor or adding a cashback program.
As a few members were suggesting, it may indeed be a good idea to consider to lock GNO LST as an option. Even though it’s been launched recently, it may be the best of both worlds for validators.
To limit risks, I think the rewards should stay in GNO though.
Just to understand more about Gnosis Governance. Why is it possible to do a redo vote on snapshot?
It should not actually be possible to simply repeat a vote as often as necessary until the “desired” result is achieved. Or am I wrong about this?
3 Likes
The GIP did not reach quorum, so we have resubmitted it, as has been done with previous proposals. We’ve observed significant enthusiasm from the community and a robust discussion surrounding this proposal. Had it been rejected outright or failed to reach quorum due to a lack of interest, the situation would be different—but that’s clearly not the case here.
Many people have dedicated over a month to setting up this program, and it would be a shame to see all that effort go to waste when the proposal has clearly garnered attention. It missed quorum by less than 25% of the required votes, so resubmission is a logical step.
2 Likes
I understand, even if I can’t quite agree with that. Thank you for the explanation.
Regarding the quorum. Timing is crucial. It’s summer, activity is low anyway. Therefore, in my opinion, the snapshot needs to be shared on social media urgently (like snapshots before - once the voting bug is fixed). I have heard that many (including me) did not even realize that the snapshot was already online and missed it.
2 Likes
Simply resubmitting the same proposal which failed to reach quorum without addressing the simple concerns voiced here on the forum reflects poorly both on karpatkey and Gnosis Pay to be honest. Sorry for the language, throwing the same shit to the wall until it sticks is merely childish, and especially spending resources over a month to set up a program and teasing it on socials and the platform before a vote has passed is simply shortsighted.
How about instead of going the low effort way to resubmit the same proposal, both karpatkey and Gnosis Pay went for better accountability to the GNO holders? I still stand by my concerns mentioned here, which were left unattended twice already on this very forum. If you guys want to do something, at least do it transparently. Otherwise, this whole ordeal is just going to ruin the reputation of the stakeholders involved in this process.
3 Likes
Yes and that’s why there is no votes yet on that Snapshot vote, this problem is caused by the subgraph used by the Snapshot strategy that is currently unavailable, the devops are currently working on it.
3 Likes
Seems solved! Happy voting
2 Likes
In the initial submission, we voted in favor of the proposal as we considered it a valuable experiment. However, given the current circumstances and how this resubmission was handled, we have some concerns we would like to address for the sake of transparency.
It’s concerning to see a proposal resubmitted without reaching quorum, particularly when no changes or community feedback were addressed. This practice sets a poor precedent and can undermine the integrity of governance processes. Typically, if a proposal fails to meet quorum, it’s expected that discussions should continue for an extended period, allowing for more input before resubmission. Not voting and withholding quorum is a suboptimal but common strategy used by communities to signal that more work or consensus is needed.
Additionally, some concerns raised by community members include:
- The lack of consideration for those using Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs), which would allow validators to deposit their GNO and still use the card.
- The geographic limitations of the user base, which could be addressed before launching a cashback campaign.
- The absence of comprehensive reporting back to the DAO, is a point of critique from several participants.
It’s worth noting that once a robust delegate program is activated, this proposal might naturally reach quorum, whether for approval or rejection.
5 Likes
I support the proposal, but also think people have good counter arguments. Anyway since the program is limited in funds I think it will be a good idea to give it a try. (Also I have mixed feelings about the resubmission, I just hope this will not occur too often.)
A question, it could not find this in the proposol or the comments:
When the Gnosis Pay rewards program runs how would you be able to vote on Snapshot with the GNO you hold in your Gnosis Pay SAFE?
I am very much in favor of this proposal and i think it’s great to see that the 2nd vote is now leaning in that direction. As a user of the card, i must say that i appreciated to have this self-custody option, but it was not my primary card. I think that with this extra incentive, it will generate a lot more activity on the chain.
For those that commented that it was not right to submit another vote because we didn’t like the result of the first one, i would highlight the fact that a quorum was not reached and a quorum (as i understand it) is a prerequisite for a decision to be valid. We didn’t have a quorum, so the result (regardless of whether it was positive or negative) was not relevant and i consider it was normal to organise a second vote. It would have been a completely different story if the result had been no, with a quorum reached.
2 Likes