GIP-131: Should Gnosis DAO continue and update the Gnosis Pay Cashback Programme?

Governance
41

As an average user (10 $GNO locked + OG Nft), the gnosispay card is at the moment my main mean of payment: but clearly, if spending limits are implemented on cashback, this will change.

The cashback incentive is what drives my usage beside the decentralized way of the process.
With spending limits (or at least those very low limits), I won’t see enough value in locking $GNO and use the card.

The DAO should treat the cashback system with great care if it doesn’t want to witness users loss.

Also, the proposal is ambiguous in its form:
I am all for the continuation of the cashback program but this update is not satisfying in my opinion.

Please clarify the proposal on this point.

2 Likes
42

This is just subsidizing Gnosis Pay, either its good or not. People voting yes want to keep getting cashback, so vote is biased. Scrap it for a month and see whether people are using it for cashback or using it because it’s actually good

Gnosis Pay must be making money, can’t they buy some gno and fund the cashback themselves?

43

If the cashback limits had been lower from the start, the cashback program could have lasted longer. Limit 5,000€ per week, which is 20,000€ per month, was too much.

Therefore, a change in limits is definitely necessary, but at the same time, I think they should be monthly rather than weekly.

The weekly limit has a significant disadvantage when it is so low that making larger purchases is out of the question, and once it is exhausted, people stop using the card. There is also less chance that someone will stake more GNO to get a higher limit.

I would be great to leave the limits as proposed, but on a monthly basis.

The estimated duration of the cashback programme is also somewhat low when we consider that the current programme with 10,000 GNO lasted almost a year.

And now, with a 50% lower budget of 5,000 GNO, it is estimated to last only 5-8 months, even with significantly reduced limits, which is quite a short time.

But of course, this entire proposal to continue the cashback programme does not guarantee any sustainability. Once again, only 5,000 GNO will be used for cashback, and that’s it.

1 Like
44

another suggestion from my side: don’t rely too much on cashback to let ppl stake gno but give some other incentives like higher withdraw limits through atm, or better exchange rates when using the card (maybe even install a fee for payment in foreign currencies that can be reduced or even void if user holds certain amount of gno). This is of course nothing for short term, cause it might scare away users even more as the reduction of cashback, but in long term it could give incentive to hold gno without burning gno. Also, if communicated early in advance, it might let ppl keeping their gno instead of selling it in view of the expected changes.

45

This, by the way, is not really up to Gnosis Pay. In part due to FATF regulations trying to eliminate the use of cash in general for better traceability, in part due to neither Gnosis Pay nor Visa nor any other intermediary in between failing to get any cut from ATM withdrawals other than the ATM provider.

46

ok, thanks…but I have different cards with different limits…not sure whats the reason and who decides on this.

47

Basically as a card provider operating in EEA, especially with ties to crypto, you are under stricter scrutiny as well. Like when you try to just integrate into trad rails under not very welcome regulations, you are not allowed to grow substantially.

48

I have a credit card (not debit) issued in EEA that allows me to get up to €1000 from atm at once and it worked the same in some non EU countries when I was on holiday (although not at every atm)

49

Your point only take into consideration high spending users.

New users in developping countried like Brazil and Indonesia will be very happy with the current low weekly cashback reward

In order to be suistanable GP needs to find the correct balance between what users actually uses and what they want…

Users tend to be greedy and want more ane more…thr high spending users will be replaced by low income spenders

Better have 10000 users spending 100$ a week than 100users spending 10000$ a week

Problem with discussions like this is most people only see their own personnal tiny interest and have no vision for long term sustainability. The most loud people will want GP to keep funding high spending/high cashback and milking it until its dry

This prop is valid and its part of the work in progress…lets renew the cashback program like its proposed and focus on bringing low income ,low spending users into the GP program…the numbers dont lies

50

Your point lacks clarity:
What are you calling high spending users? What is the threshold ?
What are the actual numbers exactly of small/medium/high spending users) ?

You can counter excessive cashback milking from high spending users without really impacting the average user.
I am not against limits, I am saying those presented here are too low even for the average spending user.

I don’t think you should reduce the cashback system to the simple matter of considering the prospect of “small” spending users quantity.
You should consider carefully the existing average users/clients.

51

I’ve read a lot of criticism to this proposal, and a lot of it seem to be from users that don’t want to lose their benefit of farming Gnosis DAO funds, so IMO not even worth responding. After all the DAO has to think long term about the best possible allocation of funds, and not in the 30 users that will switch to use another card because it pays them all. Gnosis growth strategy has never been renting volumes, and it shouldn’t be. If our product is not good enough to retain users after paying them a lot of money to test it, then the money should be spent in developing a better product - not renting volumes for longer.

However you @mrtdlgc and @NolanV raise a bunch of very valid points:

Yes, Gnosis Pay is owned by Gnosis LTD. However, Gnosis LTD itself has completed a legal transformation into a quasi foundation (a Company Ltd by guarantee without share capital). There’s no dual equity-token structure. The entity is now a purely purpose driven organization, with the objective to further the Gnosis ecosystem and decentralised technologies more generally.

Edit: I made a mistake regarding Gnosis Pay ownership. Gnosis Pay is actually owned by companies that belong to the founders, since interfacing with licensed businesses and applying for licenses requires a UBO list without ICO-era crypto companies. However, there are legal provisions in place that ensure that no value can be taken out of these companies by the shareholders, and profits accrue to the GNO token. So technically, the answer here is no, but factually, everything belongs to the DAO. This has been cleared by the founders here

Define accountability. You can see all public data in this Dune Dashboard, you know how much we are spending because of the DAO funding proposal… what do you think it’s missing?

I think you’re missing the plot here. Everyone in the Gnosis ecosystem is highly committed to making Gnosis great. There are a lot of valid criticism that can (and probably should) be done regarding its strategy, but focusing in how aligned or misaligned Gnosis LTD and Gnosis DAO are makes no sense. We read stories every week about founders that quit after vesting, yet we still see Gnosis founders showing up to work week after week, after almost 10 years.

Right now, nothing, as Gnosis Pay is a product in its growth phase and is still not generating an income. Long term, revenue will come mostly from intercharge fees (paid by the merchant), and fx. This will be captured by Gnosis LTD, and it’s for the DAO to decide how GNO will accrue its value, but as I mentioned above, Gnosis LTD is an ownerless organisation with the purpose of benefiting Gnosis ecosystem.

It’s not about not wanting to “keep large spenders”. It’s about where to put the money. I agree we need (1) an App (we are working on it) and (2) marketing-marketing-marketing. All of that is covered under GIP 128. This is just for the cashbacks - and in it’s current form is only targeting crypto users.

4 Likes
52

Better have 10000 users spending 100$ a week than 100users spending 10000$ a week

Said no financial business ever

53

You either go all in or don’t do cash backs at all.

The crypto card scene has changed since Gnosis launched the card: It has become more competitive with Kast, Payy, Bleap, Metamask, EtherFi and many more cards entering the scene.

They all will compete and if we try to win with incentives, the costs will be too high so better focus on our special strength.

I have tried most of the cards and Gnosis would still be my favorite despite the growing competition and cash back.

Tbh, small cash backs are an insult to loyal users so these limits won’t make them happy.

Better not to do them at all and focus on your current strengths that are:

  • EURe integration for fiat withdrawals

  • Low spending fees

  • Integration with Aave and borrowing incentives on Aave (for tax optimization)

  • Strength of 3rd party integrations: Eg. Zeal

I believe there are many fans who want to support Gnosis vision as a neo-bank and be part of this growing ecosystem.

Perhaps card users could be included in the future token drops by Gnosis ecosystem projects?

If you choose the incentive way, then do it like Revolut or Robinhood: throw at it as much cash as possible so competition would be left behind.

You COULD do it: Gnosis reportedly holds 67k in ETH. That is a war chest that would dwarf most of the competitors.

But you don’t need to because Gnosis has many unique selling points already.

3 Likes
55

imo cashback are to be used to attract new users to test the product, not retain existing users

3 Likes
56

agree. half-assing cashback is worse than no cashback at all. either you’re the top dog, or you are wasting your marketing budget

58

Strongly in favor of this. User growth is the most critical metric for adoption, and the cashback program has proven to be an effective engine for it. Continuing it, even at a more sustainable rate, is a logical investment in the network’s future.

59

Hello! I have some answers for you here:

Gnosis Pay is a group of companies that are ultimately owned by the Gnosis founders (Martin, Stefan, and me). However, there is a contractual obligation that the Gnosis founders cannot benefit from any profits created by the Gnosis Pay group of companies, and instead any profits must be applied in furthering the Gnosis ecosystem. The strategic reason that the Gnosis Pay group of companies is owned by the Gnosis founders (and not the DAO) is that dealing with regulators and licensed entities becomes impossible when you have an unincorporated DAO on your cap table.

Gnosis Pay will ofc be included in our quarterly accountability reports from GIP-128.

Gnosis Pay is absolutely aligned; it’s just one more thing done by the same people with the same convictions, but please bear in mind that interfacing with regulated businesses comes with additional requirements we don’t have on many other products (geographical restrictions, KYC, etc). That being said, offering a product to no one because you can’t offer it to everyone from day 1, imo, is not a good strategy.

6 Likes
60
  • 5% as it is currently is more than enough (especially if you’re a big spender)
  • you could include a locking mechanism besides than just holding GNO ; or holding + staking GNO ?
  • why not implementing DeFi opportunities for the GNO rewards : LP them, staking them, investing them in DeFi vaults… = Leverage the cashback through DeFi
  • incentivize organic & regular use rather than big & unique spendings (eg: raising the cashback cap limits for users that have above 20 weekly Txs = real users)
  • improving UX = banking-like app would definitely be a game changer
  • gamification of the card usage : temporary boosts and unlocks : “make 5 transactions today” and unlock 1% extra tomorrow for a week", or something this idea range
  • Better marketing : the use of the card and toping-up is really super smooth, you guys could really onboard new users including crypto newbies just with that feature

It’s a shame that the vision is only limited over time: Gnosis Pay is maybe the best product on Gnosis chain and cashback is the reason why it gained so much traction. If the program stops, I guess the usage of the card will too and we’ll see selling pressure on GNO token.
GP should be something that could be reviewed quarterly to adapt the incentives and develop it with a long term vision.

3 Likes
61

Hi all, thanks for all the feedback so far. I’ve gone through the comments and will try to address the main concerns.

This GIP-131 proposal is a temporary extension of GIP-110. We are asking to extend the budget while adjusting the cashback model. With these changes, the 5,000 GNO budget should last 5–8 months at current volumes (not accounting for growth). If we just extend the budget with no changes, it would likely last only 2.5–3.5 months.

Some asked why 10,000 GNO lasted about a year while 5,000 GNO is projected for 5–8 months with decreasing the spend caps. The difference is simple: transaction volumes are much higher today than when the first programme launched. The projection is based on the past 4 months of activity.

For transparency, I’m sharing a dashboard with key metrics that shows where the cashback budget is currently being spent across user tiers, and what impact the new model would have.

Screenshot 2025-08-18 at 20.53.02
Screenshot 2025-08-18 at 20.53.021540×1332 207 KB

Looking ahead, we’re working on a new structured reward system that will launch alongside the Gnosis wallet. This will include benefits for referrals, GNO holders, and other value-adding activities. Rewards will also expand beyond cashback — e.g. Circles, boosted yields, free subscriptions, premium card designs, etc.

On sustainability: I know some people won’t like these changes, especially those who’ve benefited most from the current setup. But the current cashback model isn’t sustainable. Cashback should be a marketing tool to attract and retain new users — not a long-term subsidy for a small group. The proposed changes are about spreading rewards more evenly and making the programme last.

On staking rewards comparison: Users could alternatively earn 7–10% APY through GNO staking, which sets a natural benchmark. Under the current model, cashback often offered much higher rewards than staking. The new model brings cashback closer to staking levels. Smaller GNO holders will still find better rewards through cashback, while larger GNO holders are naturally better off with staking.

On weekly caps: Calendar month caps might sound simpler, but in practice they led to spending spikes at the start of the month and drop-offs when cap was exhausted. Weekly limits keep engagement and card usage more consistent.

On gaming the system: Exclusions already exist (refunds, ATM withdrawals, self-funding, etc.) — this proposal just updates them. We can’t predict every loophole upfront, but abuse is tracked and those users are removed from eligibility.

On high spenders: It’s not that high spenders aren’t valuable. They are but under the current model some receive up to $1,000/month in cashback. That level of spending isn’t ROI-positive for the DAO and makes the programme unsustainable at scale.

On monetisation: Gnosis Pay still needs stronger monetisation, and that work is ongoing. These changes give us time to keep cashback running while not hindering growth, and buy space to build long-term revenue models.

If the goal is to attract more users and keep cashback sustainable — what specific changes would you make to the programme? Open to all suggestions.

4 Likes
62

Hey Friederike, thanks for taking time to respond. But my questions were more rhetorical than seeking answers :slight_smile:

As someone who was indeed proudly a part of Gnosis LTD, I know the structural nuances in all these entities.

There is going to be one criticism that falls on you guys, the founders, then, speaking broadly covering each and every component of Gnosis 3.0 vision. I have been trying to make it clear that the vision is not very understood due to how each entity is structured and how everything can revolve around GNO and the DAO. Especially by people who are not getting info from the inside. You guys are failing on providing transparency or just failing how every component is connected. Hence why I said “through influence”.

Even the fact that the structure of Gnosis Pay companies and why the decision was made in that direction is only known to people in the DAO in these discussions is bad looking. Not everyone would agree with such an arrangement for instance.

Hey Julian, that Dune Dashboard gives no insight around the revenue analytics of Gnosis Pay. How much of those txs are returning revenue to the company as there are tons of other intermediaries in the equation such as Monavate as the card issuer and Visa as the tradfi tx settler?

Yeah, I am also committed to making Gnosis great, should I come to the DAO now and then to ask ridiculous amounts in funding for a product with only 10k users after 2 years claiming that I am in my growth phase? :smiley:

There was one Marcos Nunes, ze CEO of Gnosis Pay. What happened to him? Why his role was terminated and how it was terminated? No one knows, man.

These were obvious challenges that we already knew. How many people did Gnosis Pay halted offering services just because their financial behavior is not in compliance with laws of the privileged?

Anyways, if you guys want to keep throwing money into feeding tradfi “partners” that introduces more and more intermediaries for payments, I don’t really think that I can change your minds here.