Appreciate the challenge. Responding to the main themes below.
On capital allocation: the comparison of ‘$22.5M deployed vs what buybacks would have achieved’ is problematic because they operate on inherently different time horizons. Returning capital via buybacks instead of building products is not the strategy of Gnosis Ltd. We care about GNO holder value, but the focus of the current program is on long‑term ecosystem development rather than short‑term, purely financial‑engineering measures. Both have a raison d’etre but the DAO funded Gnosis Ltd to develop products and infrastructure based on a goal of sustainable value generation. The north star metric here is user growth. This is a longer path and comes with iteration, uncertainty, and unfortunately also some periods where results lag expectations.
On performance: yes, some metrics are down. There are specific reasons for that, and we are actively addressing them. For example, Gnosis Pay was rebuilt from the ground up to support a B2B2C model. During that transition, onboarding to v1 was effectively paused while v2 was not yet live, which impacts short-term usage metrics. V2 is now in testing, including with external partners; one of these partners has a substantial non‑crypto‑native user base, and we will share more details once we are legally able to do so. Similarly, Gnosis Business is underperforming and we are working with the leadership team on improvements with the understanding that we are prepared to make hard decisions if needed that include shutting down or refocusing products that do not justify continued investment.
On the Gnosis App and “pivots”: changing direction based on user research is not a failure mode, it is how product development works. The difference here is that you are seeing it in public. We run extensive user testing and adapt based on what we learn. That does not always look clean, but it is preferable to sticking to a strategy that data does not support.
On transparency: I want to address head-on any suggestion that we’re deliberately hiding information. That’s not how we operate and not how we intend to. Our interests here are fully aligned with the community’s, and the work is better when it’s scrutinized. Incomplete reports reflect timing, not intent. Some data points in the latest report weren’t ready at publication and will be added within the next 2 weeks, as has been done in prior updates. We completely agree that reporting should be consistent and complete, and we’ll improve on this going forward.
Finally, on the broader framing: NAV per token is an important metric and somewhat reflects current conviction. We are very aware of it. However, the strategy for Gnosis as a project has always been focused on long-term value creation. A DAO vote would be required to change that focus and that is something that anyone can propose.