GIP-136: Should GnosisDAO support maintenance of the Gnosis Explorer (v1 + v2)?

Governance
1
  • Let’s do this!
  • Make no changes
0 voters 
title: Should GnosisDAO support maintenance of the Gnosis Explorer (v1 + v2)?
status: Phase-2
type: Funding
Created: 2025-09-11

Summary

We request a two‑year maintenance grant to fund ongoing operations of the Gnosis explorer, including the v2 validator dashboard and the v1 explorer, from July 2025 through June 2026. The prior maintenance period concluded June 2025; since then, we have kept the explorer fully available at our own expense to avoid any service interruption for the Gnosis community.

Website: Gnosischa.in (“v1”) and gnosischa.in/dashboard (“v2”)

The grant will cover:

  • Continuous maintenance of v2 dashboard and v1 explorer through 06/2026; or
  • The same functionality delivered on a newly migrated website that consolidates services and ships an improved UX while preserving feature parity.

To effectively integrate gnosis into our products and ensure a long-term partnership, we propose a two-year commitment. The first payment will be made immediately, with the second payment due at the end of the initial period.

  1. Requested amount: 300,000€ (350,000 USD) for 06/2025 - 06/2026
  • 60% USDC
  • 40% GNO with a 1 year lockup period, ending on 06/2026
  1. Requested amount: 300,000€ (350,000 USD) for 06/2026 - 06/2027 (to be paid in 05/2026)
  • 60% USDC
  • 40% GNO with a 1 year lockup period, ending on 06/2027

Payment can be made to 0x9d4E94dB689Bc471E45b0a18B7BdA36FcCeC9c3b

Background & Prior Funding (What worked, what we learned)

GIP‑74 (2023): Initial support for Gnosis explorer

  • Scope: Fund hosting + operations of gnosis explorer as a public good; CL+EL in one explorer; open‑source mobile app for validator monitoring.
  • Disbursement precedent:
    • Annual funding of $250k
    • 60% USDC/USDT and 40% GNO (GNO with 2‑year lockup).

GIP‑105 (2024): Support for v2 dashboard

  • Scope: Endorsement to operate and advance the v2 explorer/dashboard, focused on scale and UX for validator operations.
  • Outcome: Launched v2 validator dashboard with high‑scale monitoring (up to 100k validators per dashboard), new efficiency metric, grouping/sharing, and real‑time slot visualization. Maintained v1 for continuity while onboarding users to v2.

Current Status (as of September 2025)

  • The 2024/25 maintenance period ended 06/2025. Since July 2025 we have been covering infra, storage, and on‑call costs out‑of‑pocket to keep gnosis explorer online without disruption.
  • v2 is available for Gnosis Chain; v1 explorer remains available

Scope of Work (07/2025–06/2026)

We will:

  1. Operate and maintain the gnosis explorer stack (EL+CL indexers, databases, APIs, web front ends, background workers) with 24/7 monitoring and on‑call.

  2. Support for: (a) current v2 dashboard + v1 explorer, or (b) an equivalent set of features migrated to a new consolidated site with improved navigation, accessibility, and performance.
    Biggest pain point for Gnosis users was the low dashboard limits. The v2 dashboard will include increased limits:

    • 200 GNO for free tier
    • 200 GNO on guppy tier
    • 300 GNO on dolphin tier
    • 1000 GNO on Orca
      We want to emphasize that we’re working on a new dashboard, which may use a different validator structure and may not have a 1:1 copy of the limits from the current dashboard.

  3. Protocol upgrade readiness: Ensure explorer compatibility and dashboards for upcoming client releases and hard forks; deliver network‑upgrade day dashboards and comms.

Github repositories:

Budget & Disbursement

Baseline ask: 300,000€ (350,000 USD) for the 12‑month period (06/2025–06/2026).
Suggested structure (matching the original grant precedent):

  • 60% in stablecoins (USDC/USDT) — $210,000
  • 40% in GNO — $140,000 with 1‑year lockup

To keep the Gnosis Explorer and Gnosis API running, we rely on the support outlined in this GIP. If the proposal does not pass and funding isn’t secured, we will begin a responsible wind-down of these services. In that case, we’ll offer a 30-day transition period after the vote to help existing infrastructure providers adjust. We’re sharing this for clarity and planning purposes, and we’re grateful for the Gnosis community’s ongoing support.

3 Likes
GIP-138: Should Gnosis DAO fund the maintenance of node-sentinel.xyz?
Staworth Limited - Delegate Platform
2

Thank you for this proposal and your work to build beaconcha.in as a FOSS service and operate it for Gnosis Chain. I consider it a useful tool that I use to monitor my own Gnosis Chain validator as well.

I am happy to see that Gnosis supported the development of beaconcha.in in the past and I’d be in favor of supporting it going forward but I do not think that $300k is the value that Gnosis DAO gets from it. I don’t know if or why it is that expensive to operate (especially since the Gnosis and Ethereum beacon chains are pretty much identical and thus just need infrastructure and not really development) but that is secondary, I find the price tag overall just too high. So unless the annual price for Gnosis DAO gets corrected towards max $100k I am voting against this GIP.

5 Likes
3

I believe beaconcha.in is a good service and has served the Gnosis community well. However, I find the amount requested in this proposal to be significantly excessive.

In GIP-74, you requested $250k to cover the following:

  • $8k for infrastructure
  • $1k for monitoring + SRR
  • $9k for a senior developer
  • $3k for a junior developer

Now, in this new proposal, you’re increasing the request by $100k, bringing the total to $350k per year to maintain both the v1 and v2 deployments.

If the cost of infrastructure and maintenance is $9k/month ($108k/year), which I already consider quite high, I don’t understand why the DAO should be paying one senior and one junior developer, especially when the core development work is already complete.

I’m against this proposal in its current form and believe the requested funding should not exceed $100k per year.

2 Likes
4

Hi @butta can you please link to the explorer in your post so that the community has a point of reference? Butta is writing on behalf of the https://beaconcha.in/ team.

I agree with the previous comments. The price tags is pretty bloated.

5

Thank you, added the URLs in the OP

6

Thanks for your proposal. We had a few comments to share:

First, we noted there’s an inconsistency in the proposed duration given the pricing offered for 2 years. Though we’d be grateful to agree 2 years of pricing upfront for only 1 year of commitment, we wouldn’t want this ambiguity to lead to a dispute in a year’s time, so would appreciate if this could be clarified fully in the final proposal.

Second, we note that GIP-105 from July 2024 set a fee of $300,000 annually (plus $100,000 integration fee), and included a broader scope of work with the migration to V2. We had assumed that the $300,000 would be a recurring, routine maintenance amount. With the migration completed and a smaller scope of work requested in GIP-136, we noted the increase to ~$350,000 annually (€300,000), which is an increase of over 16% YoY. In contrast, we note that global inflation hovered more in the 4-5% range (a <$15,000 increase). Please could you explain more the reason for the significant increase in the base cost?

Thank you in advance :pray:

Staworth Limited - Delegate Platform
7

Hi @staworth

You are right, it’s a bit confusing.
We request a one-year maintenance fee ASAP, but the proposal is meant to cover two years, with the second payment due next year. I’ll update the first sentence to say “two-year”.

RE: Cost
Hosting costs have gone up due to chain growth and the addition of proper staging and dev environments. On top of that, our costs are in EUR, and with the recent devaluation, we’re losing out on both fronts. I know the latter point is more debatable, but the main driver is the increased maintenance costs.

1 Like
8

The explorer is crucial infrastructure.

Without it, chain transparency is gone. A bad explorer signals a dying or irrelevant chain.

It must be supported properly and aim to look and feel as close to Etherscan as possible.

The costs are small compared to the value it provides to every user and project on Gnosis.

2 Likes
9

DISCLAIMER: I am an investor in beaconcha.in. Therefore I am biased here.

I believe that the work done by beaconchain is crucial and their explorer is a must have for staking both in Gnosis and Ethereum if your run validators.

Perhaps we could debate the costs a bit and try to bring the price down for Gnosis but I would argue we need it.

To add a bit more nuisance to @SCBuergel’s point I would like to clarify something important. Gnosis staking is not a copy paste of Ethereum one. It has some small but important difference. The xDAI and GNO token duality for example is one. And across the entire staking logic all of these differences add up, increasing complexity. Which means increased development and maintenance costs.

For hosting costs I can’t speak much, but this is probably something easy to identify and discuss with them.

I would just urge the Gnosis community to think if they want to lose the only staking explorer they have. I won’t be voting here as I have a serious conflict of interest.

1 Like
10

same. I thought they add new features or something.
/e to suggests some improvements. Use Hetzner server or something. Or ovh, if you want to distribute a little across continents. I assume there must be other server hoster in similar pricing worldwide. You have to get a little creative, but this seems like quite high.

11

I share Sebastian’s concerns. This would be the second consecutive year with a +$50k increase, about 40% over two years, on top of the $100k “v2 integration” fee. That version hasn’t been fully delivered yet as far as I can tell.

The current version also appears to reduce functionality: the free tier cap at 200 GNO effectively covers ~3 fully consolidated validators and doesn’t seem to incentivize consolidation, even though monitoring a few consolidated validators is obviously cheaper than monitoring up to 64x more. On the Dolphin plan (25,99€ for 300 GNO), the fee approaches ~10% of validator yield in the best scenario (where a user actually monitors exactly 300 GNO, which is unlikely). The anonymous, read-only dashboard also seems to be gone, which is a downgrade for both privacy and ease of use.

To be honest, I don’t quite get why you want to bill our (even small) validators so much, when the hosting costs should already be covered in the grant, and I don’t see how they could significantly increase costs for you. I’m all for making users with 10k validators pay, but I’m not a fan of being this expensive for small validators, especially when Ethereum validators only need to start paying when they own about $15m in ETH.

Taken together, this feels quite extractive for both the DAO and users, and I cannot support the proposal in its current state. A thorough update on v2 deliverables/timeline and the pricing rationale would help.

As a reply to @lefterisjp:

I believe that the work done by beaconchain is crucial and their explorer is a must have for staking both in Gnosis and Ethereum if your run validators.

I agree. I would definitely prefer to find a path forward, but for me this isn’t it.

Gnosis staking is not a copy paste of Ethereum one. It has some small but important difference. The xDAI and GNO token duality for example is one. And across the entire staking logic all of these differences add up, increasing complexity. Which means increased development and maintenance costs.

Well, the staking part and everything linked to the consensus layer is literally exactly the same. We use the exact same clients as Ethereum, just with a few different configuration variables, which were variables from the get go and shouldn’t really be a burden because they’re also different for testnets and devnets. The execution layer is also basically identical post-merge.

There are indeed a few minor differences when taken together:

  • In the UI, we want to show GNO instead of mGNO, so we need to divide the amount by 32 and replace “ETH” with “GNO”.
  • The execution layer rewards are indeed xDAI, which is a difference that is not linked to the CL. If it is really a problem though (for example for the income graph) I would be totally fine with removing it. The explorer doesn’t need to be an exact accounting tool, and the EL rewards are negligible anyways.

I feel like $100k for those small changes should cover it though, no?

I would just urge the Gnosis community to think if they want to lose the only staking explorer they have.

There is also https://dora.gnosischain.com/. It is clearly way more limited, but at least makes it possible to check if your validator is working at a given time. It’s definitely not a replacement for https://gnosicha.in though.

You could also use https://beacon.gnosisscan.io/, which is more limited as well but at least has some historical data.

6 Likes
12

This is not accurate. NodeSentinel (https://node-sentinel.xyz/) is a monitoring tool for Gnosis beacon validators. It has always been free (no cap) and has been running for 2 years.

3 Likes
13

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that this is indeed so fundamental and the team behind it so irreplaceable that the DAO has no choice but to continue to fund them. That could well be true. But it absolutely does not mean that this version of the proposal needs to pass. The DAO’s role is to negotiate and optimize, even in situations where the top level final outcome is inevitable.

Some thoughts from that perspective:

What is the budget? Just asking for an amount isn’t a budget. There is a notable discrepancy between the % of this already extremely brief proposal dedicated to how the team should receive the money versus how it will be spent and explaining why that amount is appropriate.

How are we in this situation? This is written as though we should be grateful for the continued service, but surely this could have been avoided if a new GIP was submitted in a timely fashion. Was there some delay on the Gnosis side?

It’s hard not to parse this as blackmail. If the goal was truly to provide the DAO with clarity and the ability to plan, we would have been informed about it months ago.

One obvious place to optimize this proposal is the cost, but I don’t have sufficient information to assess the proposed numbers or suggest an alternative.

A further compromise could be to make the second year’s funding contingent on some clear KPIs.

But in general there just simply isn’t enough information here to do anything but reject it. The DAO’s options would be considerably widened if this had been submitted as a Phase 1 proposal, an issue by no means restricted to this GIP (GIP-128 is an extremely notable recent culprit here).

8 Likes
14

What does it mean for ppl buying beaconcha.in premium?

15

I would just like to pop in and say many of these are valid points and would like to also see some answers and back and forth between the proposer and the DAO.

2 Likes
16

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our position and address your concerns directly. As a company, we are committed to transparency and constructive dialogue with the Gnosis DAO community.

To start, we fully acknowledge that the delay in submitting this GIP was entirely our own oversight. There was no delay on the Gnosis side, and we take full responsibility for not initiating the process earlier. Since the prior maintenance period ended in June 2025, we have continued to fund the full operations of the Gnosis Explorer and API out of our own pocket to ensure uninterrupted service for the community.
This was a deliberate choice on our part rather than something we expect gratitude for. It’s simply what we felt was right given our long-standing commitment to the Gnosis community and the broader Ethereum ecosystem.

That said, as a business, we must meet our monthly obligations, including paying bills and salaries for our team. While we are deeply aligned with the community’s goals, our primary responsibility is the sustainability of our company and its employees. We cannot indefinitely maintain a project that results in ongoing financial losses.

Our intent in outlining the potential consequences of the proposal not passing (including a responsible 30-day wind-down period) was to provide clear, upfront information for planning purposes, not to exert pressure. We regret if this came across as anything else, and we certainly did not mean it as blackmail. It was meant to illustrate the real-world implications transparently, allowing the DAO to make an informed decision.

“Gnosis is a copy of Ethereum”
As @filoozom noted, these changes may look minor at first glance, but in continuous product development they must be considered across the entire development and design process. For example, during our new API design we had to make specific choices to support Gnosis; similarly, in our UI design we must account for its different base currencies, otherwise the UX would suffer. These are just two basic examples.
I agree however, that in a “finished” product these issues won’t matter once implemented, but that is not the current state of our product.

Cost/maintanace
Gnosis accounts for 50% of beaconcha.in’s total infrastructure costs but generates only 1% of the product’s total revenue; therefore, it requires a subsidy from the Gnosis DAO. The Explorer’s infrastructure cost has decreased on a per-instance basis, but the introduction of staging and development environments has led to an overall increase. These environments were introduced to ensure beaconcha.in remains a high-quality product.

cc @filoozom , @thewanderingeditor , @refri , @lefterisjp

1 Like
17

I believe beaconchain is a key explorer for gnosis validators and should be kept at least for 1 more year. If the dao thinks that we need to change it let’s do that but we can’t stay without such a basic tool.

gnosis as a chain has some key differences vs ethereum and this add to the complexity of maintaining infra too. If we need to negotiate at least we need other options or explore alternatives but due to the urgency of the situation I would vote on favor.

I would have loved from the beaconchain team to prepare this proposal with more time and I understand that they run a business that has costs but we should also see if it is possible to reduce those or have a breakdown and see if we as blockchain need everything they offer.

2 Likes
18

Could you share a breakdown of these costs so the DAO can get a better understanding/insight?

1 Like
19

First, thanks to the beaconcha.in team for keeping gnosischa.in online after the prior grant expired—continuity matters for validator ops.

That said, I can’t support GIP‑136 as written. The ask rises to €300k (~$350k) per year for 2025–2026, with another €300k penciled in for 2026–2027, paid 60% USDC / 40% GNO (1‑yr lock). The scope is routine maintenance of v1+v2 or a consolidated site.

  • This is ~16% YoY above last year’s $300k (which already included a $100k migration fee), yet the post contains no budget line items. Several delegates asked for this and I agree that it’s needed.
  • The new validator tiers (e.g., 200 GNO free, paid tiers from there) risk double‑charging small operators (DAO subsidy + user fees) and reportedly approach a material share of yield; the anonymous read‑only dashboard also seems removed. This needs a rethink.
  • The 30‑day wind‑down language reads poorly to many. We should negotiate, not be cornered. Year‑two should be KPI‑contingent if funded at all.

What I would support immediately:

  1. A 12‑month grant with a clear budget (infra, staffing, alerting, support) and monthly reporting
  2. KPIs (≥99.9% API uptime, <5‑min indexer lag SLO, upgrade‑day dashboards delivered on T‑0, and specific validator UX deliverables)
  3. Fair validator pricing (keep explorer viewing free, restore anonymous read‑only dashboards, and ensure lower‑stake validators aren’t penalized)
  4. Year‑two as a separate Snapshot contingent on KPI performance
  5. A lower price point aligned with a narrower scope than GIP‑105.

If continuity becomes a real risk, I’ll back a 3–6 month bridging grant at a pro‑rata rate while the DAO runs an open RFP (NodeSentinel / Dora / GnosisScan beacon / beaconcha.in can all bid). That preserves service while restoring our position as a smart, price‑sensitive buyer.

Explorer quality is a signal of chain health. I want us to fund it well and responsibly.

2 Likes
20

Sorry to say that we felt we had to vote Against on the GIP-136 that’s gone to Snapshot today. We flagged before that this proposal is confusingly drafted and not clear on whether it’s a one-year or two-year commitment. Though some changes have been made since our initial comments, the proposal is still extremely confusing. If it’s a two-year commitment, a full two-year budget should be set out and made clear throughout, especially in the budget at the end.

We would consider voting For a revised and cleaned-up proposal

1 Like