Thank you @StefanGeorge and @mkoeppelmann for the additional context. However, there are several critical points that remain unaddressed.
TLDR:
- karpatkey covers a lot of bases for Gnosis (too many?)
- they overcharged (acknowledged by recent fee negotiation)
- back-date all overcharged fees and consider them an investment in the round
- ~20% kpk to GnosisDAO
“Take It or Leave It” Approach Leaves No Room for Negotiation
The framing of this proposal suggests karpatkey will proceed with or without GnosisDAO’s approval. That fundamentally undermines the DAO’s role. If this is truly meant to be a mutually beneficial partnership, why is GnosisDAO not in a position to negotiate terms? If anyone here has the upper hand, it is GnosisDAO.
Right now, this reads as a rubber stamping exercise rather than a real discussion.
Were Safe and Cow Successful Spin-offs for GnosisDAO?
The comparison to Safe and Cow raises an important question: Did GnosisDAO actually benefit from those spin-offs?
Gnosis retained roughly ~10% (?) of each project, and yet:
- Safe now trades at a higher FDV than Gnosis itself
- Cow trades in a similar valuation range
There is extensive literature on corporate spin-offs and carve-outs, and the goal is to unlock value for the parent entity and its stakeholders. Given that neither Safe nor Cow significantly returned value to GNO holders or the DAO treasury, how are these considered successful precedents for structuring karpatkey’s transition? We should be discussing lessons learned from these past spin-offs, not just repeating the same approach (or an even worse one).
Let’s Have Transparency on Lifetime Revenue from GnosisDAO, Safe, and Cow
While it’s clear karpatkey delivered some value, the real question is how much support it received compared to the “risk” it took.
A lifetime revenue breakdown from GnosisDAO, Safe, and Cow vs. other clients would bring clarity:
- How much of karpatkey’s business was sustained by GnosisDAO?
- How much revenue did it receive compared to the value it provided?
- What percentage of its earnings came from Gnosis Family vs. external clients?
If karpatkey is making the case that it is independent and took significant risks, then these numbers should speak for themselves. If they are unwilling to provide them, we are happy to do so if provided the relevant wallets to retrieve this information.
If Fees Were Reduced, Does That Imply Karpatkey Was Overcharging?
You mention that fees have been adjusted over time, but let’s be honest - reducing fees is an acknowledgment that they were too high in the first place.
If karpatkey is truly aligned with GnosisDAO’s long-term success, wouldn’t the logical step be to transition away from high fixed fees, towards a performance-based structure + hurdle rate + HWM?
SOFR is 4.33%, but a mere 2% hurdle rate would completely wipe out any karpatkey performance fee. Mixing asset management with DeFi development obscures the fee structure and makes it difficult to scrutinize.
GnosisDAO Needs a CFO - Not Just Service Providers Who Extract Value
At this point, the real issue is not karpatkey - it’s GnosisDAO’s lack of a financial strategy.
GnosisDAO is incredibly successfully building top-tier projects and maintaining Ethereum-aligned principles, yet it consistently fails to capture the value it creates. Instead, that value leaks out to external service providers.
GnosisDAO should hire a CFO:
- Someone independent who can oversee treasury management, ensure value is being retained, and negotiate contracts that actually serve the DAO’s long-term interests
- A CFO with a clear mandate to prevent inefficiencies and eliminate financial leakages
- A CFO who represents GnosisDAO—not service providers with a financial incentive to keep high fees
karpatkey charged ~$7M in fees last year. That’s an amount that should be actively managed by an internal financial officer—not dictated by a third-party provider whose incentive is to maximize its own earnings.
Gnosis should receive at minimum 20% of kpk, which is still a steal for karpatkey. Given the recent fee structure change, one approach could be to determine the overpaid amount by applying the new fee structure to past years and considering that amount an additional investment from GnosisDAO.
Make Gnosis Great Again #MGGA