There’s been a lot of tension between token holders and kpk for legitimate reasons.
- The debate over GIP-58 (increasing kpk’s fee from 3% to 20% of yield) was highly contentious. Critics argued the fee was too high.
- Token holders have often complained that kpk’s complex reporting lack clear benchmarks and financial transparency. KPIs are not clearly stated. Without clear treasury stats (GNO buyback and burn stats, sDAI yield stats along with GNO staking stats) the value prop of GNO remains unclear.
- I myself have been frustrated with the lack of comms from the kpk team especially with regards to DAO governance. As a large holder of delegated GNO, kpk should strive to operate with complete transparency especially if they choose to delegate out their delegated GNO.
- kpk has at times chosen to disregard the governance process and re-do GIPs causing token holders to question the legitimacy of the governance process all together.
- The community has questioned whether kpk’s treasury strategies prioritized DeFi yield over Gnosis Chain ecosystem needs, which has been voiced in the comments to this proposal.
kpk’s a long-term partner of Gnosis and I hold the team in high regard. That said, this frustrating relationship has at times negatively impacted the reputation of the GnosisDAO due to a lack of transparency around kpk’s decisions. I hope that kpk takes the opportunity to proactively address the concerns of the community that have been clearly communicated here.