This statement comes across as incredibly dismissive. It frames the proposal as a take-it-or-leave-it deal—almost as if GnosisDAO should feel lucky to be included at all. Instead of positioning this as a mutually beneficial agreement, karpatkey is dictating terms while expecting GnosisDAO to simply rubber-stamp them.
This is especially strange given that karpatkey originated from GnosisDAO’s ecosystem and continues to be paid handsomely by it.
If the vote doesn’t actually impact the outcome, then why even have one?
Will KPK be tradable this year, or will GnosisDAO just be holding an illiquid position with no way to exit?
The language around karpatkey “reserving its right” to enable transfers suggests that control over the token’s marketability remains entirely in the hands of the karpatkey team, not tokenholders.
That’s a great question—because the proposal fails to justify why GnosisDAO is still paying karpatkey exorbitant fees while receiving only a small, illiquid, and non-controlling stake in return.
Would you, for the sake of transparency, as a DAO, be willing to share lifetime fees collected from each of your clients?
This proposal feels like a reactionary, cosmetic attempt to salvage a failing governance process (GIP-92). It does not address the criticisms that led to GIP-92’s failure, nor does it provide GnosisDAO with any real control, liquidity, or strategic advantage. Instead, it simply positions GnosisDAO as a passive recipient of a vesting allocation while karpatkey proceeds with its plans completely unchanged.
If the Gnosis founders have already signed off on this behind closed doors, then fine—go ahead. But let’s not pretend this is real DAO governance or, for that matter, luxury gay space communism. This looks more like the People’s Republic of Treasury Management - where the party elite make all the decisions while the proletariat gets symbolic governance rights and airdropped non-redeemable ration cards (a.k.a. KPK tokens).