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…
Both, for sure in the beginning just verifying only the wallet associated to gnosis pay safe.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Seems solved! Happy voting
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:
It’s worth noting that once a robust delegate program is activated, this proposal might naturally reach quorum, whether for approval or rejection.
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.
