GIP-148 : Request for Proposals - Treasury Management Services for Gnosis DAO

[ernst]

Gnosis DAO is seeking proposals from qualified treasury management providers to support operational liquidity, endowment management, and governance-related treasury activities across on-chain and off-chain environments.

The mandate covers day-to-day operational treasury, active asset management, risk and reporting infrastructure, and governance participation, with a strong emphasis on reliability, transparency, and crypto-native execution.

This RFP is for ongoing services, not a one-off deployment.

Scope of work

• Gnosis Chain strategic and operational liquidity management

  • Multi-currency liquidity (EURe, GBPe, BRLA, BRZ, ZCHF; more coming)
  • DeFi liquidity, lending markets, bridges, solver incentives
  • Circles liquidity
  • GIP disbursements, payments, counterparty due diligence

• Endowment Management

  • Active ETH + stablecoin management across DeFi
  • 24/7 monitoring, alerts, emergency procedures
  • Risk-adjusted alpha research (ETH yield, stables, RWAs)
  • GNO buybacks, OTC/CEX execution, investment tracking

• Delegated Committee Role

  • The selected provider will act as the delegated treasury committee for DAO‑controlled, Cayman‑incorporated entities, including (but not limited to) any foundations that hold a mandate from the DAO to manage its treasury or to enter into transactions and other matters on its behalf, with authority to instruct such entities and execute treasury operations in line with mandates approved by Gnosis DAO governance

• Governance & Voting

  • Treasury-related token voting (pro-GnosisDAO/GNO)
  • veBAL + Aura voting (GC emissions)
  • Relevant DAO proposal monitoring
  • Kleros voting (where applicable)

• Reporting & Transparency

  • Live treasury dashboard
  • NAV + GNO circulating supply tracking
  • Off-chain asset review
  • Unified risk infra with 24/7 monitoring
  • Monthly reporting cadence

What we’re looking for

• Crypto-native treasury operators with real execution experience
• Strong risk management and monitoring
• Comfort operating across on-chain + off-chain + legal entities
• Clear reporting and accountability
• Incentive-aligned fee structure

Budget & Compensation

• Total annual budget envelope: ≤ USD 1.5m, aligned with the last negotiated KPK proposal
• Proposals must fit within this envelope
• GNO-denominated compensation and option-like structures with a holding / vesting period are acceptable and encouraged if aligned with long-term DAO interests

Proposal Requirements

• Team & legal structure (incl. ability to act as delegated committee)
• Relevant track record (DAOs, foundations, treasuries)
• Operational & risk approach
• Reporting examples
• Fee structure

Evaluation Criteria

• Operational competence at scale
• Experience with DAO-adjacent legal structures
• Risk management maturity
• Transparency and reporting quality
• Alignment with Gnosis DAO values
• Cost and incentive alignment

Timelines

Proposal submission until Jan 23. We understand this deadline is tight, the DAO needs a new treasury manager ASAP – if you would like to submit a proposal and can show significant work by Jan 23rd, we will extend the deadline until Jan 30th.

[Wismerhill]

Thank you for the proposal @ernst. I would like to understand if the scope of the proposal would include the proposal previously posted: GIP-146: Should GnosisDAO establish a transparent and updated Net Asset Value (NAV) per GNO??

Is your idea of NAV and off-chain asset review the same as in this proposal?

I would like to suggest encapsulating the posted (GIP-146) proposal under the Reporting & Transparency scope of work.

[ernst]

Yes, part of the mandate should be that the treasury manager makes sure GNO trades at least at NAV. This does require both good metrics on circulating GNO supply and NAV ofc. I hope that if that mandate is prescribed, the GNO price will mostly self-correct in anticipation.

[Kotler]

Hello @ernst thanks for opening the door to potential new managers, I am not sure if I am understanding well the compensation suggested to the new manager, does this mean the total compensation overriding the previous 1/20 structure is now 1.5M max without performance fee in place?

[ernst]

Yes, or the performance fee is part of the total comp that is capped at 1.5m.

[staworth]

Though we appreciate the need to push forward promptly here and ensure the hole left by kpk is filled, we would just like to lightly push back on the first version of this RFP, on the basis that it does little to address the problems that the community had with the old structure.

Performance

The proposal says effectively nothing about investment performance, and it definitely does not appear in the “What We’re Looking For”. However, the DAO has repeatedly expressed concerns about poor performance. Here’s one of the strongest examples:

@0x6f2

It’s not a communication issue, it’s a performance issue. You have underperformed, overcharged, and overexposed GnosisDAO to unnecessary risks.

You barely, if at all, outperform the most basic passive benchmarks.

@0x6f2

We should be moving all assets to wstETH and sUSDS/sUSDE. Karpatkey cannot and will not outperform them, and they are neutral, low risk yield sources.

To the extent that many tokenholders are purchasing GNO because of the value proposition of its treasury assets, there is likely going to be firm expectations that those assets should perform well. Avoiding that conversation at this opportune moment will likely lead to more mismatching and disappointment of expectations in the future.

Alternatively, if performance is strictly off the table for this engagement (i.e. it’s operational support, not investing), then we think that should also be clear in the RFP, and made clear to GNO holders as well.

Reporting

The RFP does go into some detail about the outputs of a report process, but does little to set broader expectations about improving standards of reporting. All of the things on the RFP’s list were offered or being developed by kpk, but the problems which led to kpk’s removal are much deeper:

@refri

What I see as the main fault is the delayed communication. Kpk, at least to their post above, was aware of the problem but didn’t communicate here, neither as a post here that would have been the best, but also not in their monthly reports (which would be the minimum I would expect). And this problem is not restricted to this single incident but seems to be a ‘feature’ of gnosis related entities (e.g. the latest trouble about gnosis pay cashback rewards). If Gnosis DAO should be something more than an extension of ltd (for legal or whatever reasons) this has to be change.

We see this as an opportunity to reset reporting, not reinstate the same formula. We would like to see proper balance sheets of treasury assets, statements on the DAO’s different income streams (including both investment return, revenues from Gnosis products, and special inflows like airdrops from incubated projects). We’d like to see ongoing and active scrutiny of the TM’s work by involved participants of the DAO, not just Gnosis Ltd. We’d also like to see KPIs on incident reporting, that make abundantly clear how long the TM has to report a critical issue.

We’d also hoped that this could be an opportunity to decentralise reporting, having DAO-led reporting with a critical eye that aims to hold Ltd and the treasury manager to account. As is, we’re concerned that the treasury manager won’t even have a direct relationship with the DAO, beyond the selection process (see Fees below).

Though we agree that some level of reporting from a TM is important (as with Ltd), we really feel that TMs have a natural conflict of interest to seek to inflate the figures, and brush the cobwebs under the carpet. We think is the perfect opportunity to change how we think about the DAO’s reporting, and will be disappointed if this function just carries on the same as it always had under a new provider.

Fees

Some of the loudest frustrations with kpk were to do with their fee structure. This moved from expensive to opaque, and the DAO wanted transparency and a stronger alignment of interests. For example:

@aurelius

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?

Though we’re glad to see that this RFP leaves the door open to *“incentive-aligned fee structure”, we feel that a big part of our previous problems were that fees were first set out by the treasury manager and then agreed behind closed doors with Ltd. DAO members wanted a say, and wanted a better deal than they got.

Rather than leaving this entirely open to the treasury managers, we feel that the DAO should have a brief period of consultation, and specify some desirable or necessary elements of the fee structure here, perhaps leaving specific areas (e.g. vesting) open to the managers to propose.

We’re also somewhat concerned to see that the budget is being framed as the last-negotiated kpk proposal. Are we right to think that this $1.5M USD comes from the GIP-128 budget? And in those circumstances, the treasury manager would not be accountable solely to the DAO, but would be tied to Gnosis Ltd’s budget?

Term/Renewal

Finally - and perhaps most importantly - this RFP says nothing about the duration of appointment for any new treasury manager, or how their appointment may be extended. Can this be taken to imply that the TM will have a rolling appointment? Or perhaps that their appointment is subject only to the approval of Gnosis Ltd’s funding?

With kpk having no specific term or renewal expectations, this left them to operate free from the expectation of any defined moments of future scrutiny. Over time, this led to a chasm between the DAO and the treasury manager, which only heightened tensions.

Though fixed terms and renewals often add work or bureaucracy, we feel this is an important lesson to take from the kpk termination. We’d advocate firmly for an initial fixed duration, with an option to extend subject to a mechanism of DAO disapproval.

Final Thoughts

If the breakdown of GnosisDAO’s treasury management over the last year has shown us anything, it’s that the DAO does have strong interests and views on the management of the treasury. Rolling over those expectations quickly and with force seems like a sure way to repeat the same negative outcome. This is an opportunity to change the way that the DAO treasury is managed… we hope the DAO will take it.

[Kotler]

I find this pretty misaligned with the responsibility and workload requested from a proper manager, performance fee is what keeps an asset manager competitive and motivated to perform at a good level, since the treasury size is big, that cap can be reached pretty easily, leaving the manager unmotivated and uncompensated after that cap is reached, I’d suggest reconsidering the comp structure, management fee can definitely be flexible and a good manager won’t care much as long as the performance fee is aligned with market standards.

[GFXlabs]

Messages did not appear enabled, and these are probably questions other potential applicants will ask as proposals are prepared:

@ernst

Active ETH + stablecoin management across DeFi

Is there a defined investment objective for the portfolio as a whole, and any segmentation within it? Even something as simple as “generate yield” requires an understanding of overall risk tolerance. Other investment objectives could also be favoring projects within the Gnosis ecosystem, providing liquidity to strategically important assets, optimizing for high transparency and simplicity, or minimizing loss at the expense of yield.

A statement on the RFP or an existing policy that can be referred to would help enormously.

@ernst

This RFP is for ongoing services, not a one-off deployment.

Is initial acceptance of a service provider’s bid a term of a year (as implied by the annual budget), or is it another length of time? Is renewal expected to be automatic, subject to active vote, or fresh RFP at the end of each term?

Nailing down the exact term if accepted helps to understand cost structure for fixed costs like building a live reporting dashboard.

@ernst

Reporting & Transparency

• Live treasury dashboard
• NAV + GNO circulating supply tracking
• Off-chain asset review
• Unified risk infra with 24/7 monitoring
• Monthly reporting cadence

Is there a list of “must have” items that need to be included in each report? Are these expected to be formal statements (e.g. balance sheet) or simply optimized for easy consumption and understanding by the community?

One suggestion is to actually have a 3rd party provide this service (with cooperation and communication from the winner of this RFP). Splitting reporting from management ensures a provider is not “grading their own homework” so to speak.

@ernst

• NAV + GNO circulating supply tracking
• Off-chain asset review

Is there a good place to view the entire current portfolio of offchain assets? Is the community wanting 3rd party appraisals of these assets, or is the goal simply to consolidate all asset valuations, and probably carry the assets at either cost or most recent fundraising valuations?

Thank you in advance.

[ernst]

Many good points raised here, thank you!

1. I hear you on the performance fee. Why I initially opted for capped was the following: The DAO’s risk appetite for risky investments should be low imo. The treasury should be there for reliably funding the future of the Gnosis ecosystem. If there are low-risk yields to be had, we should definitely take them, but I worry that this will lead to bad investment decisions because the payoff is asymmetrical. I also understand your point – if a performance fee is included in the proposal, I would insist on two things: Only whitelisted investment opportunities are permissible (to prevent the treasury manager from aping into risky positions) and the performance fee is only applied above a water mark of say wsETH and USDS/ whatever low-risk pool the DAO would have defaulted to.
   So tldr: No strict prohibition of performance fees, but if you include a performance fee in your proposal, please heed the above.

2. Term: I would suggest a 1y term that can be rolled forward, but with a shorter termination period if the performance is unsatisfactory.

3. Splitting reporting and treasury management: This is possible, but the proposal should entail both, even if these services are provided by different entities. IMO having a separation is not strictly necessary because information is verifiable onchain.

4. Is there a list of “must have” items that need to be included in each report? Are these expected to be formal statements (e.g. balance sheet) or simply optimized for easy consumption and understanding by the community?

The reports don’t have to fulfil formal statement requirements but should provide pertinent information (positions, protocols the funds are deposited in, yields, change to previous month/ year etc) so that assets and risk profile can be easily gauged.

5. Is there a good place to view the entire current portfolio of offchain assets? Is the community wanting 3rd party appraisals of these assets, or is the goal simply to consolidate all asset valuations, and probably carry the assets at either cost or most recent fundraising valuations?

Yes, the latter.

[jmo]

a few thoughts from my side:

1. Does it makes sense for all the tasks to be bunched together? it’s likely quite difficult to find ppl that will be able to cover everything with acceptable level of expertise.
2. rfp might benefit from clearer goals and KPIs (e.g. what level of liquidity are you expecting, whats the investment goal, etc.)
3. can these tasks actually be internalized within gnosis? gnosis is a very big ecosystem and to truly do the tasks well, the team needs to be fully dedicated to the ecosystem. if it can’t be internalized, i think having an central committee of 2-3 ppl within the dao and the committee contracting various service providers for the specific tasks could make sense and make everything more efficient/faster.

[BillieJoe.eth]

The scope described in the current proposal appears to largely replicate the scope previously outlined and submitted by kpk. It is therefore somewhat surprising to see a Request for Proposal being conducted while already having a top-tier treasury manager in-house. Based on previous discussions and past proposals, kpk is widely understood to be a spin-off from Gnosis (basically, kpk is part of Gnosis ecosystem business) and has historically received strong support from Gnosis’ founders. Moreover, kpk has consistently demonstrated top-level performance working with Arbitrum, dYdX, ENS, Balancer, among others. In this context, it is difficult to understand why Gnosis would not consider working with kpk, as this appears neither consistent nor well justified. Why does the DAO want to hire a new TM when the DAO owns (literally) the best one internally? @ernst @StefanGeorge @mkoeppelmann

In addition, several comments point out that the proposed scope is overly broad and, to a large extent, dependent on the strategic direction defined by Gnosis Ltd for Gnosis Pay and Gnosis Chain. Given this dependency, a more reasonable and pragmatic approach would be to split the scope into two clearly defined parts.

The first part would cover the Gnosis Endowment on Mainnet, where the primary objective should be to work with a Treasury Manager. In this case, based on proven performance and strong industry recognition, kpk seems to be the most appropriate choice. Why not kpk?
The second part would be an operational fund, intended as working capital and managed directly by Gnosis Ltd, which in practice leads most of the ecosystem’s initiatives.

This separation would allow for clearer ownership, better accountability, and a more coherent alignment between long-term treasury management and day-to-day operational execution.

[Hyperithm]

Hello everyone, this is Hyperithm.
We are interested in this RFP and would like to clarify the final scope boundaries, within defined risk limits, to ensure our proposal is well aligned.

Baseline assumption

When we refer to a conservative baseline, we mean low risk options such as wstETH for ETH exposure and sUSDS for stablecoin yield.

1. Risk and return expectations (net to DAO)

After all fees, including management fees and performance fees, are deducted (net to DAO), which profile is closest to what the DAO expects relative to the baseline?

1. Similar risk and similar outcome. The main value is operations and risk management
2. Limited additional risk in exchange for a small but consistent outperformance
3. Clear additional risk in exchange for meaningful outperformance, with guardrails

2. Primary objectives of the mandate

Is it correct to understand that the top priorities of the treasury mandate are to pursue both.

• Operational liquidity and stable yield generation for the endowment
• Managing the GNO NAV discount, including potential buybacks and burns when applicable

Also, is it correct to assume that the latter is executed based on a predefined trigger when the NAV discount widens beyond a certain threshold, rather than discretionary action?

3. Strategy scope examples (risk perspective)

For each example below, please indicate whether it is allowed, conditionally allowed, or out of scope. If conditionally allowed, what are the top one or two constraints you would expect?

A) Leverage based strategies

Leverage exposure including looping via major money markets such as Aave or Morpho, limited to conservative assets such as wstETH and sUSDS or sUSDe

B) Non leveraged multi chain deposits

Non leveraged deposits across multiple chains outside Gnosis and Ethereum into major money markets such as Aave or Morpho for protocol and chain diversification, assuming a limited chain whitelist

C) Low risk opportunities within a governance approved framework

Opportunities like Plasma pre deposit, where principal remains deposited in major money markets such as Aave or Morpho, while additional yield arises from capacity limits or first come first served mechanics
Examples of framework elements include defining eligible opportunity types, protocol and chain whitelists, asset scope, total caps and position caps, execution rules, and reporting requirements

D) Holding PT type assets for pre discussed assets to maturity

Holding PT type assets for pre discussed assets until maturity

4. EOA and off chain (CEX) execution scope

We understand that EOA or off chain execution such as CEXs can improve execution quality, but may introduce additional operational and custody risk. Under the safeguards below, we would like to clarify the scope for EOA and off chain execution.

• EOA is managed via MPC, and we can provide third party verification that the wallet is an MPC wallet
• CEX balances are continuously auditable via read only API keys, with ongoing verification through an independent third party monitoring provider
• Clear guardrails are defined in advance, including allowed venues, exposure caps, and reporting requirements

Under these conditions, is EOA and off chain execution allowed, conditionally allowed, or out of scope?

[Regen_Financial]

Should Gnosis DAO Use an Independent Accounting & Reporting Layer for Treasury Management?

Summary

Following the passage of GIP-143, it is clear that Gnosis DAO’s frustrations are about more than just performance. They reflect a fundamental breakdown in trust, transparency, and accountability.

That’s why Regen Financial is proposing to serve as an Independent Account & Reporting Layer to Gnosis DAOs Treasury Management function. Regen is a crypto-native accounting firm who have supported 50+ leading Web3 projects including Arbitrum and GMX. By structurally separating Reporting (Regen) from Execution (Treasury Manager), Gnosis DAO can ensure that Treasury Managers will never again “grade their own homework.”

Regen Financial is not submitting a standalone Treasury Management bid, nor are we seeking a parallel mandate that competes with Treasury Managers.

Instead, we are proposing to act as an independent reporting partner that Treasury Managers may choose (or be mandated) to include as part of their Treasury Management proposals.

In practice:

• Treasury Managers submit execution-focused bids to Gnosis DAO

• Regen Financial is invited by Treasury Managers to be included as the designated independent reporting layer within their bids

• Upon approval, Regen Financial contracts directly with Gnosis DAO, ensuring neutrality and accountability to GNO holders

• This structure allows Gnosis DAO to approve a single, integrated Treasury Management program while maintaining a permanent, independent reporting layer

A good Treasury Managers will deploy capital effectively. A good analytics dashboard will show you where the money is. However, only with the support of an experienced team of web3-native Chartered Accountants can Gnosis DAO truly create a credible, professional, and institutional-grade investment program.

---

The Antidote to GIP-143: Professional Accounting over Visual Dashboards

While live dashboards provide a snapshot, alone they are insufficient for high-stakes governance. As noted in recent community debates, Gnosis has suffered from:

1. Out of Range Capital: Millions in capital sitting idle in Uniswap v3 positions without notice.
2. Incident Failures: Lack of unbiased reporting on de-pegs or exploit-related losses (e.g., the EURe/sDAI incident).
3. Perfomrance Confusion: A failure to distinguish between market movements and actual manager skill.

It is time to adopt established industry standards. This requires core financial data to be reconciled by Chartered Accountants rather than merely visualized by Analytics Developers. This shift not only eliminates conflicts of interest but ensures the transparency, credibility, and ultimate accountability of the DAO’s Treasury Management efforts..

---

Scope of Deliverables (Monthly Reporting)

We provide a static, institutional-grade monthly report to the DAO, including, but not limited to::

• The NAV Waterfall: A clear “bridge” showing how the balance changed month-over-month detailing what changed during

• Performance Attribution (P&L): We track cost-basis for every deployment. This is intended to show why the balances changed. We show the DAO if the manager is actually generating above market returns, or simply profiting from general market trends.

• Active Utilization Audits: Shows where capital actually sits.

• Holdings & allocation: We will present monthly financial flows, holdings and allocations split by chain with MoM deltas, Realized vs. unrealized P&L (lot-level; FIFO). Cost basis & average entry per token. We all also present:

  • Strategy view per token (stake/lend/LP/farming).

  • APY/APR decomposition: base yield, fees, rewards, incentives; claimables & unclaimed rewards.

  • Fees & slippage (bridging, swap, protocol)

• Token flow statements: We will outline all inflow and outflows from DAO owned Treasury wallets (deposits, withdrawals, swaps, bridges) and provide high level organizational overview of operational in/outflows within our reports

---

Budget

We have structured our fee to fit within the $1.5M annual budget envelope currently discussed for Treasury Management. This ensures Gnosis DAO receives professional oversight without increasing total program spend.

• Fixed Annual Service Fee: $135,000 - $195,000 per annum (Final quote to be updated after further scoping discussions. No billable-hour surprises).
• Tooling & Sub-ledger Costs: ~$1,500 per month.

At ~10% of the total budget, our fee acts as a critical safeguard for the other 90%. By separating oversight from execution, we ensure the DAO’s entire spend is efficient, secure, and fully accountable.

Operating Model: Independent Accountability

To maintain absolute neutrality, we propose a “Direct Mandate” structure:

1. Step 1: Treasury Managers include Regen Financial as the designated reporting layer in their execution-focused bids.
2. Step 2: Upon DAO approval, Regen Financial contracts directly with Gnosis DAO.

Result: This ensures the reporting partner is a neutral advocate for Gnosis DAO, not a subcontractor beholden to the Treasury Manager.

---

Why This Works

• For the Gnosis Community: This introduces durable checks and balances. It creates an unbiased reporting layer that persists even if the DAO decides to change Treasury Managers in the future.
• For Treasury Managers: We remove the reputational risk of high-scrutiny reporting. Managers can focus on execution, while Regen as a neutral third party validates their performance to institutional standards.

Recent Experience

• Arbitrum DAO: Co-authored the Grants Framework, Arbitrum Multi-sig Support Service and Arbitrum DAO Token Flow Report.
• Complex Fund Reporting: We manage high-velocity, multi-currency accounting for a sophisticated Bittensor Fund. Read case study here

---

Our Ask

• To Treasury Managers: If you are bidding for the Gnosis mandate and want to offer the gold standard for Treasury Management transparency, supported by a team of Chartered Accountants, please reach out to @Elliott_regen via Telegram or email elliott@regenfinancial.com-
• To the Gnosis Community: Let us know if this approach resonates. We believe this is the bestway to avoid the structural failure of the past and best set up the community for prosperity and success

[paul2]

Agree with @staworth and others in the thread who pointed out that this RFP seems to invite the same type of treasury management structure Gnosis already had with kpk.

Some of the more compelling arguments from that vote weren’t about kpk’s specific ability to manage the assets, but whether the benefits of active portfolio justify the expense in the first place.

Rather than look for other treasury management providers, it’d be interesting to see what kind of passive management processes could be proposed, looking instead for lower maintenance ways to handle:

• portfolio selection - an initial allocation of assets and process for making periodic changes
• outflows - a % of the treasury each year to be spent on DAO proposals
• emergency protection - a module or conditions for taking emergency actions on the treasury in the case of a systemic risk event, and who takes those actions.

Is there a reason the RFP is asking for active managers only?

[re7capital]

Treasury Management Proposal for GnosisDAO

Firm: Re7 Capital
Contact: Connor Milner

Introduction

Re7 Capital is one of the largest institutional digital asset managers in DeFi and has an audited track record of DeFi portfolio management. We currently operate treasury and liquidity mandates for L1 and L2 foundations (under strict NDA, references upon request). Our fund LPs include private banks, investment banks, and sovereign adjacent capital.

GnosisDAO requires a treasury partner with institutional grade infrastructure, audited performance, and structural alignment. Re7 Capital is the partner to take up the strategic treasury management mandate for GnosisDAO.

Re7 Capital Overview

Founded	2021
Track Record	A verified track record of sustained double-digit annual gains, audited over 4+ consecutive years.
Capital Preservation	Active risk-first approach. Our market-neutral strategies are stress tested and performed through UST collapse, FTX contagion, USDC depeg, the Euler hack and 10/10 liquidation zero principal losses during these events.
DeFi Infrastructure	In-house technical and risk team operating across 15+ chains, powered by our proprietary risk infrastructure
Ecosystem Clients	L1 and L2 foundations
Institutional LPs	Private banks, investment banks, fund of funds, family offices
Recognition	Hedgeweek Digital Asset Awards, quoted in top publications such as Business Insider and Bloomberg.

References available from partners upon request.

Proposed Terms

Term	Proposal
Performance Fee	15% of yield above benchmark
Management Fee	1% on actively deployed assets
Hard Cap	$1.5M/year for the first year
GNO Compensation	50% paid in GNO, 12-month vesting
Benchmarks	wstETH (ETH), sDAI (stables)
Reporting	Live dashboard, weekly, monthly, quarterly
Conflict Policy	Team abstains from mandate votes
Token Extraction	None
Risk Standards	24/7 monitoring, institutional controls

Open to discussion on performance/management fee weighting as these terms cover the resources we’d put towards treasury management. The scope below extends to liquidity, governance, and ecosystem growth. Initial 12-month term, 90-day notice for termination. 30-day notice for underperformance against agreed KPIs. Renewal subject to DAO approval.

Scope of Services

1. Gnosis Chain Liquidity Management

• Multi-currency support: EURe, GBPe, BRLA, BRZ, ZCHF
• DEX liquidity, lending markets, bridge liquidity
• Circles liquidity provisioning
• Solver incentive optimization
• GIP disbursements with counterparty due diligence

2. Endowment Management

• Delta-neutral yield strategies
• ETH and stablecoin deployment with continuous monitoring
• GNO buybacks via OTC and CEX with controlled market impact

3. Delegated Committee Role

• Authority to instruct Cayman entities per governance mandates
• Interface with traditional finance counterparties
• Corporate governance and audit documentation

4. Governance and Voting

• veBAL and vlAURA voting to maximize Gnosis Chain gauge emissions
• Protocol governance participation for deployed assets
• Monthly reporting on voting activity and rationale

5. Reporting and Transparency

• Live dashboard with NAV, attribution, and risk metrics
• Weekly operational summaries
• Monthly comprehensive reports
• Quarterly strategic reviews with scope confirmation

6. Strategic Ecosystem Growth

• Leverage relationships to bring new DeFi deployments to Gnosis Chain
• Liquidity strategy to design programs that attract sticky capital, not mercenary farming
• Institutional introductions to connect Gnosis ecosystem to our network of banks, funds, and foundations
• Stablecoin expansion and work with issuers to deepen multi-currency infrastructure

Risk Infrastructure

We take risk management at the portfolio level as our most important job, evidenced by our track record within our market neutral fund and treasury management mandates.

Control	Standard
Oracle Monitoring	Sub-15-minute staleness threshold
Coverage	24/7/365 including weekends and holidays
Alert Response	Automated triggers (Hypernative and proprietary monitoring) with on-call team
Human Assessment	On-call team response within 15 minutes
Position Review	Daily across all deployments
Incident Reporting	Critical issues reported to DAO within 4 hours + post incident reviews
Emergency Authority	Pre-approved unwind procedures

Our infrastructure is built for institutional LPs who conduct regular operational audits. GnosisDAO receives the same standard.

Performance Standards

• Audited track record available on request
• Performance fees earned only when exceeding benchmark
• No black-box strategies

For discussion: We are accustomed to operating under performance aligned mandates and would like to define those mandates together with the community objectives. Are wstETH and sUSDS the appropriate benchmarks? How should we think about capital preservation against yield against support of new projects and opportunities? We’re open to alternatives that better reflect overall objectives.

Alignment Mechanisms

Mechanism	Purpose
50% GNO compensation	Performance tied to token value
12-month vesting	Long-term alignment
Vote abstention	No self-dealing on mandate decisions
No token extraction	No spin-off equity, no governance token
Hard cap from day one	Cost certainty

For discussion: What additional alignment mechanisms would be meaningful? Co-investment structures, different vesting terms, or other approaches are all on the table.

Gnosis Ecosystem Support

We have extensive experience and connections with all of the main DeFi protocols on Gnosis and the ability to bring strategic and business relationships to enhance the value for the mandate.

Balancer and Aura

• Active vote management across existing mandates
• Gauge emission optimization for ecosystem pools
• Hidden Hand participation
• Direct experience with FX pool oracle dynamics and liquidity provision

Multi-Currency Stablecoin Operations

• Direct relationship with the likes of Circle, Ripio, Monerium (EURe), Frankencoin (ZCHF), Transfero (BRZ)
• FX pool deployment experience: Years of experience deploying and managing FX stablecoin pools including on Gnosis. Lending market deployments for various non-USD stablecoins like EURC.
• USD stablecoin pool optimizations including managed liquidity ranges and hedging infrastructure.

Gnosis Infrastructure

• Gnosis Safe custody integration
• CoW Protocol for MEV-protected execution
• Familiarity with Circles, Metri, and Hashi
• Years of experience deploying on Gnosis in protocols including Balancer and Aave

For discussion: How should we weight Gnosis Chain-native activity against broader DeFi deployment? This affects strategy construction significantly.

Team

Re7 Capital’s team combines quantitative research, institutional portfolio management, and deep DeFi operational experience.

Leadership

• Former TradFi Portfolio Managers
• Combined 20+ years in traditional finance across portfolio management, trading, and risk
• 10+ years in digital assets, exchanges and venture capital

Operations

• 24/7 coverage across global time zones
• Backgrounds spanning UBS, Blackrock, BitGo, Fidelity and Coinbase
• Direct experience managing institutional-grade DeFi portfolio infrastructure

DeFi Native

• Active in DeFi since 2019
• One of the longest professional track records of DeFi liquidity deployment
• Hands-on experience across capital deployment on Aave, Balancer, and 50+ protocols

Our team has operated through every major market event since DeFi’s early days with another record year zero principal losses in 2025.

Fee Estimate

Component	Amount
Management Fee (~$95M deployed at 1%)	~$950,000
Performance Fee (assuming 3% alpha)	~$428,000
Estimated Total	~$1,378,000
Hard Cap	$1,500,000

For discussion: We’re open to restructuring terms towards lower fixed with higher performance, different GNO/USD splits, or trial periods with adjusted terms.

Questions for the Community

1. Strategic priorities: What does success look like in 12-24 months?
2. Scope: Full-service or focused mandate? What should be prioritized? Different mandates for different scopes?
3. Risk tolerance: What is considered a conservative allocation? Our deployments would be limited to whitelisted protocols approved by the DAO. No speculative positions.
4. Benchmarks: wstETH and sUSDS, or alternatives?
5. Alignment: What mechanisms matter beyond GNO vesting and vote abstention?
6. Ecosystem priority: Gnosis Chain growth or capital preservation?
7. Fee structure: Does this work, or should we explore alternatives?
8. KPIs: How should we be measured?

Available Upon Request

• Reference calls with relevant treasury management relationship managers
• Community office hours to review and discuss proposal terms
• Risk framework documentation
• Audited track record detail
• Team KYC

Timeline

Phase	Timing
Community discussion	Immediate
Proposal refinement	Based on feedback
Onboarding	Weeks 1-2 post-selection
Initial operations	Weeks 3-4
Full deployment	Month 2

Next Steps

This proposal covers treasury, liquidity, governance, and ecosystem growth. Gnosis deserves the best asset manager and Re7 is uniquely positioned to support across all verticals. We believe treasury management should be a strategic function and we’re the team with the proven track record to deliver.

Connor Milner
Re7 Capital
re7.capital

Looking forward to the discussion. Tag us or reply here, we welcome community questions.

[blakechains]

Superform Proposal

Gnosis DAO deserves treasury management of its onchain assets that aligns with the core crypto ethos of decentralization and transparency. We propose Superform’s SuperVaults as a management solution that replaces traditional asset managers with a fundamentally different model:

• 0% management fees
• 95% of performance fees to Gnosis DAO
• Full DAO custody and control
• Battle-tested vault infrastructure with onchain verification
• Real-time transparency with an open-source dashboard

We commit to a full deployment of both core contracts and SuperVaults on Gnosis Chain within 2-4 weeks of proposal approval, including smart contracts, backend infrastructure, protocol integrations, and the management dashboard. All Superform smart contracts are open-source and Apache-licensed infrastructure that anyone can deploy.

Superform is currently deployed on 8 chains and growing including Ethereum, Base, Optimism, Arbitrum, BNB, Polygon, Avalanche, and Unichain. A deployment of Superform core on Gnosis Chain additionally supports the distribution of Gnosis protocols across Superform’s Web app and upcoming iOS app.

Addressing Community Concerns

The Gnosis community has highlighted persistent issues with prior treasury management which we believe are replicated in current proposals. SuperVaults directly addresses these concerns:

• 0% management fees
• DAO retains 95% of all outperformance depending on gains above benchmark
• Real-time on-chain verification via merkle proofs
• 1-year term with 90-day termination clause
• Validator-secured pricing with economic slashing
• Full DAO governance over all protocol additions

Unlike traditional managers charging 2–3% management plus performance fees regardless of results, Superform only earns when the DAO outperforms passive benchmarks ensuring strict alignment and zero extraction.

What Are SuperVaults?

SuperVaults is Superform’s production-grade vault management system with $185M peak AUM across Ethereum and Base, designed for automated execution and real-time monitoring.

Security

• Dual merkle trees (global + DAO-specific permissions and protocol whitelists)
• 15-minute timelocks with Guardian veto
• Validator-secured pricing with economic slashing
• Automated slippage protection and circuit breakers

Automation

• Automated redemption fulfillment and reserve replenishments
• Configurable investment ladders for deposits, redemptions, claims, and swaps
• Zero manual intervention required

Transparency

• Live dashboard: https://managers.superform.xyz
• NAV, PPS, allocations, historical performance, gas costs
• Monthly public reports

Strategy

• 80% conservative core: wstETH and sUSDS
• 20% value-add layer (if desired): Variable rate lending via Aave, etc.
• Automated rebalancing across 60+ audited protocols!
  
  

We would be happy to demo the entire management platform to the DAO in the evaluation of this proposal.

Proposed Timeline

Phase 1 — Months 1–3

Superform manages core allocations through investment ladders. Gnosis DAO retains full custody, merkle governance, and Guardian veto. Superform infrastructure support at reduced 5% performance fee.

Phase 2 — Month 3+

Full DAO autonomy with roles officially moved over. Gnosis DAO begins to co-manage or solely manage investment ladders, depending on DAO preference. Superform infrastructure support at 5% performance fee.

Superform Team Experience

• Founding team is from BlockTower Capital, a $1bln crypto fund where they co-managed a $150m DeFi fund. SuperVaults were developed to do this process transparently onchain, and current Flagship vaults have a quantitative, PhD-led team managing strategies. As of the time of writing, SuperVaults exist on Ethereum and Base and are managed by the Superform Foundation.
• Investors: VanEck Ventures, Circle, Polychain Capital, Maven11 Capital, Amber Group, BlockTower Capital, CMT Digital and more.
• Superform was founded in 2022 with the mission to provide simple and secure access to DeFi. Since launch, Superform acquired over 150,000 users and $185m peak TVL with zero exploits.

Resources

More can be provided on request due to the link limit, including audits and technical docs.

[Avantgarde]

RFP: Gnosis

Submitted by: Avantgarde Finance
Contact: info@avantgarde.finance

---

1. Executive Summary

This is a partial response to the GnosisDAO Treasury Management RFP, focused on areas where we deliver the strongest synergies: managing the DAO endowments and governance.

Avantgarde specializes in on-chain, non-custodial asset management, with established experience running conservative, risk-bounded strategies. Risk management is handled in-house using proprietary monitoring & risk management, proven processes, clear guardrails, and monthly reporting.

We intentionally limit the scope we’re pitching for, as we believe few providers can execute the full mandate well. We support a modular setup, to reduce single point of failure and allow a more specialist coverage for this.

---

2. Problem & Opportunity

Managing the GnosisDAO treasury has historically involved a broad and operationally complex mandate, spanning liquidity management and asset management, which are fundamentally different disciplines requiring distinct expertise, tooling, and decision frameworks. Past experience shows that consolidating these functions under a single provider can create structural execution trade-offs, as success in one does not necessarily translate to strength in the other.

Avantgarde specializes in non-custodial on-chain treasury management, operations, and risk-controlled strategies.

This RFP presents an opportunity for providers to contribute where they are strongest, either independently or in collaboration with others and deliver an overall more robust solution.

In light of that, we will be pitching for a portion of scope where we feel we would be strongest. We are open to joining forces with parallel proposals that together form a complete, high-quality treasury management setup.

---

3. Proposed Scope

We’d like to pitch for the following scope:

• Endowment Management

  • Active ETH + stablecoin management across DeFi
  • 24/7 monitoring, alerts, emergency procedures
  • Risk-adjusted alpha research (ETH yield, stables, RWAs)

• Delegated Committee Role - ALL

• Governance & Voting - ALL

• Reporting & Transparency - Monthly, static reports (excluding liquidity management and buyback data)

In other words, we are pitching all aspects of the scope except for: Gnosis Chain strategic and operational liquidity management, GNO buybacks, OTC/CEX execution, investment tracking and reporting on these segments

---

4. Track Record & Experience

Historical performance — low-risk USDC yield vault

Over the past year, our low-risk USDC strategy has delivered consistent mid-to-high single digit yields in normal market conditions, with periods of elevated returns when on-chain money markets repriced..

Takeaway: a reliable USDC cash-yield sleeve designed to prioritize capital preservation, liquidity, and predictable carry, rather than “APY chasing.”

Historical performance — low-risk ETH yield

The ETH strategy is intentionally conservative, aiming to capture core ETH carry while maintaining a risk posture aligned with treasury mandates.
Takeaway: steady ETH yield capture with controlled complexity and minimal tail risk.

We also expect we can generate some yield on a small portion of other tokens in the portfolio (eg. GNO, SAFE, COW).

Sample treasury reports:

• Gitcoin Dune AUM Dashboard
• Compound COMP Yield report

Clients/references:

Compound, Gitcoin, RareDAO, Decentraland, Uniswap, Near Foundation, others.

---

5. Ops Set Up

• SAFE multisig, with Zodiac roles modifier permissions to be granted to Avantgarde
• Avantgarde’s proprietary monitoring, risk management and reporting infrastructure.

---

6. Pricing

$450k for full scope outlined

We’re open to reducing the fee if a 3rd party wants to take on the reporting components of this mandate. For example, we are supportive of @Regen_Financial’s proposal to take on reporting as a whole. We have worked together in the past and can vouch for their high quality work.

---

7. Team

Avantgarde is a 10-person team active in DeFi since 2016, with experience spanning traditional finance and crypto-native markets. The team combines backgrounds from BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, alongside founders of DeFi protocols, bringing strong depth in on-chain operations, risk management, and disciplined execution within non-custodial environments.

[Noca]

Proposal: Treasury Management Services for Gnosis DAO

Submitted by Noctua Capital LLC January 2025

---

Executive Summary

Noctua Capital LLC (“Noca”) submits this proposal as part of the Gnosis DAO’s RFP for Treasury Management Services. We offer a comprehensive solution covering Mainnet endowment management, Gnosis Chain liquidity operations, and delegated committee responsibilities.

Our proposal prioritises cost efficiency, clear accountability, and alignment between the DAO and Noca through risk-appropriate benchmarks and well-defined operational boundaries.

Noca operates exclusively for GnosisDAO - no competing mandates, no divided attention, no conflicts of interest.

Key Proposal Highlights

Element	Proposal
Single-client model	Yes
Annual Base Fee	$1,000,000
Performance Fee	30% above benchmark
Long-Term Alignment	20% equity to Gnosis upon expansion
Liability	$500k/year for gross negligence
Termination Notice	90 days

---

Team & Legal Structure

Legal Entity

Noctua Capital LLC is a Delaware-incorporated LLC structured to serve as a delegated committee for DAO-controlled entities, including Cayman-incorporated foundations holding mandates from Gnosis DAO.

---

Relevant Track Record

@dave founded Noca to bridge the gap between institutional treasury standards and the operational realities of DAOs. With a background in finance from HEC Paris, he has worked in crypto full-time since 2017.

He has been active within the Gnosis ecosystem for nearly eight years, from the 2017 Berlin meetups and being an early user of Omen and GPv1. Dave led treasury management at DXdao, a DAO project between Gnosis and DAOstack. While at DXdao he also responsibly disclosed a critical governance vulnerability that could have enabled a complete treasury drain.

Since November 2025, Dave has stepped in to act as GnosisDAO’s interim treasury operator, ensuring a smooth transition period. Noca is currently expanding the team with additional hires bringing extensive experience in DeFi operations and treasury management.

DAO & Foundation Experience

• Deep experience with Gnosis ecosystem, including governance participation and protocol interactions (Omen, GPv1, GPv2, Gnosis Auction, DXdao)
• Proven crisis management during major DeFi exploits, including coordinating response strategies and executing emergency procedures
• Responsible disclosure of critical governance vulnerabilities demonstrating commitment to protocol security

---

Scope of Work

1. Endowment Management

Objective: Deploy capital into yield-generating strategies to preserve principal and generate alpha.

Responsibilities

• Active management of stablecoin and ETH positions for yield optimisation
• Position consolidation: deploy positions in size, closing current small positions the DAO holds
• Liquidation of non-strategic assets into yield-focused assets
• 24/7 monitoring, alerts, and emergency procedures
• Risk-adjusted alpha research (ETH yield, stables, RWAs)

Conflict of interest disclosure required for any position involving protocols where Noca holds material personal positions, entities with advisory or equity relationships, or related-party transactions. Disclosures reported to Gnosis Ltd prior to capital deployment with quarterly summary. Strategic alignment filter: no deployment to direct competitors or ecosystems misaligned with Gnosis (Gnosis Ltd holds sole discretion).

---

2. Strategic GNO Buyback Authority

Objective: Enable opportunistic accumulation of GNO during periods of market undervaluation.

Parameter	Limit
Maximum quarterly deployment	$5,000,000
Maximum single-day execution	$500,000
Execution venues	DEXs, CEXs, Aggregators (CoW Swap), OTC

Rationale: Discretionary authority enables quick action during market dislocations without governance delays that would result in adverse execution.

---

3. Gnosis Chain Liquidity Operations

Objective: Provide deep, reliable liquidity across Gnosis Chain to support ecosystem growth and strategic asset liquidity.

Responsibilities

• FX liquidity management to support Gnosis Pay (EURe, GBPe, BRLA, BRZ, etc.)
• Lending market and AMM liquidity provision for strategic pairs
• Discretionary incentives and ecosystem liquidity provision for operational efficiency
• Circles liquidity support
• GIP disbursements, payments, and counterparty due diligence

Operational Standards

Metric	Target
GIP transaction execution	Within 10 business days post-approval*
Price impact ($100k swaps)	< 100bps for strategic pairs
Liquidity uptime	> 95%
Request turnaround	48 business hours

*or as mutually agreed for complex operations

---

4. Governance & Voting

Objective: Maximise the utility and influence of governance tokens held by the DAO by delegating voting power to Noca for active participation in protocol governance.

Scope

• GnosisDAO delegates voting power for any governance tokens held in treasury to Noca (excluding GNO)
• Noca shall vote in the best interest of GnosisDAO and GNO holders, considering:
  • Proposals that are relevant for GnosisDAO
  • Alignment with Gnosis ecosystem objectives
  • Long-term value preservation of held positions
  • Avoidance of conflicts with GnosisDAO strategic interests
• Noca shall exercise delegated voting rights at its discretion without prior approval for routine governance matters

Conflict Policy: Noca shall abstain on any vote presenting a direct conflict of interest.

---

5. Reporting & Transparency

Real-time public dashboard replaces traditional monthly reports; quarterly written reviews provide strategic context and KPI assessment.

Public Treasury Dashboard (Real-Time)

• Consolidated on-chain positions
• GNO circulating supply and NAV tracking
• Burn rate and runway projections
• GIP expenditure history

Quarterly Reviews

• KPI performance vs. targets
• Off-chain asset overview (i.e. Venture Portfolio)
• Governance participation summary
• GNO buyback performance disclosure

---

Out of Scope

The following are explicitly excluded from this mandate:

• Legal, tax, or regulatory advisory services
• Audit coordination or smart contract security reviews
• Technical infrastructure development or operations
• Business development, partnership sourcing, or protocol deployment coordination
• External data submissions and metadata maintenance

---

Risk & Operational Approach

Benchmarks & Performance Measurement

Asset Class	Benchmark	Rationale
USD Stablecoins	USTB (Short Duration US Gov Securities)	Low-risk USD reference rate
ETH	Median Network Staking APR	Reflects baseline validator yield

Liability Framework

Scope of Liability: Noca accepts shared liability for losses arising from gross negligence on Gnosis Chain operations, defined as:

• Failure to execute approved transactions within SLAs that results in liquidations or documented financial penalties
• Unauthorized transactions or positions outside approved parameters
• Errors in transaction parameters (e.g., excessive slippage limits, incorrect oracle addresses) leading to immediate loss
• Willful or persistent deviation from mutually agreed-upon operational manuals

Exclusions: Smart contract exploits, oracle manipulation, bridge exploits, governance attacks, market events, regulatory actions, and force majeure are explicitly not considered negligence.

Liability Terms: capped at $500k per year. Disputed classifications subject to independent third-party arbitration.

---

Custody & Execution Framework

Non-Custodial Architecture

All treasury assets remain under DAO control via Safe multisig infrastructure. Noca operates as a delegated executor with scoped permissions - never as a custodian.

Element	Approach
Asset Custody	DAO-controlled Safe contracts
Execution Model	Delegated authority via signers and modular Safe permissions
Key Principle	DAO retains ultimate control; permissions revocable without Noca cooperation

---

Fee Structure

Total Annual Cost: $1,000,000 base fee + 30% performance fees

Component	Terms
Base Fee	$1,000,000/year, paid monthly
Performance Fee	30% of returns above benchmark (uncapped), paid quarterly
Operational Costs	Gas, rebalancing, third-party fees covered by DAO Treasury

Base fee: First year $500k paid upon execution to cover operational setup, with regular monthly payments starting July 2026. Base fee subject to 3% annual adjustment beginning year two.
Performance Calculation: USD positions measured quarter-over-quarter vs. USTB benchmark; ETH positions measured quarter-over-quarter vs. median consensus layer APR.

Long-Term Alignment

• Noca shall be an exclusive service provider to Gnosis
• Expansion to new clients shall require Gnosis approval
• If and when Noca expands to other clients, Gnosis shall receive a 20% stake in Noca

---

Execution & Termination

Execution

Upon approval, the DAO will execute a services agreement via Gnosis DAO Operational Foundation incorporating these terms. Gnosis Ltd is authorised to negotiate such agreement on behalf of the DAO.

Termination

This is an ongoing engagement with no fixed term. Either party may terminate with 90 days written notice. Upon termination:

• Noca shall execute orderly wind-down of positions as directed by the DAO
• Fees pro-rated to termination date
• Base compensation continues during wind-down for ongoing operational responsibilities

---

Proposal IPFS hash: bafkreig3wxfkqhnahvc2owzpdbpregplsq55nic52lqgsaokc2w3ip3rtu

[RockawayX]

Summary

RockawayX provides comprehensive treasury management services for decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), combining institutional-grade DeFi asset management with governance support, analytics infrastructure, and token growth strategies. This agreement outlines an expanded scope of services tailored to the unique needs of protocol treasuries and DAO governance.

Founded: 2018

BVI Asset Management License

More than 5 years of track record with double-digit returns every year

Team

RockawayX is a builder-investor that has been investing, building, and operating in digital/DeFi markets since 2018, combining early-stage venture with a full-stack on-chain operating platform spanning liquidity provision, solver-driven execution, and in-house engineering—battle-tested across multiple market cycles and governance-constrained treasuries such as GnosisDAO.

Their global team is known for long-held convictions—most notably as a seed backer of Solana—while actively collaborating with portfolio teams through capital, infrastructure, and hands-on execution. Within the Gnosis ecosystem, RockawayX has backed key primitives including participation in Safe’s 2022 financing—reflecting long-term alignment with Gnosis-native infrastructure and custody rails.

Track record

RockawayX has demonstrated a strong track record of consistent performance and disciplined risk management across multiple market cycles. Their yield strategies have delivered solid returns while maintaining excellent risk-adjusted performance metrics. Notably, their approach has proven highly effective at mitigating downside risk, with an impressive safety record across all strategy types including DeFi protocols, lending operations, and real-world assets. The team has consistently achieved their performance targets while adhering to strict risk controls.

The same track record is paired with a clean operational history—0 protocols hacked, 0 defaults, 0 liquidations—and is demonstrated on large, governance-constrained treasuries.

A more detailed view of historical performance data, monthly returns, and comprehensive risk metrics is available in the full slide deck in the Appendix.

Scope of work

PILLAR 1: DEFI ASSET MANAGEMENT

This section covers active management of DAO treasury assets deployed in DeFi protocols.

1.1 Portfolio strategy & allocation

Initial Setup:

• Comprehensive treasury assessment and risk profiling
• Customized allocation strategy aligned with DAO objectives
• Presentation to DAO governance for approval
• Deployment roadmap (3-phase implementation over 12 weeks)

RockawayX will leverage Gnosis Safe custom modules to automate routine treasury operations, including yield harvesting, position rebalancing, and scheduled disbursements. This architecture enables efficient execution while preserving full multisig oversight for critical transactions. All automated operations remain subject to pre-approved parameters, protocol whitelists, and spending limits.

Ongoing portfolio management:

• Active management across approved protocols:
  • Optimized Lending: Morpho, Spark, Aave (selective)
  • Liquidity Provision: Balancer V3 Aave Boosted, Uniswap V3 concentrated
  • Stablecoin Yield: Gnosis Savings DAI, Spark sDAI
  • Liquid Staking: Stakewise V3, Lido, Ether.fi (diversified)
  • Real-World Assets: Midas (mTBILL), Ondo (OUSG), Centrifuge
• Active rebalancing based on APY performance
• Monthly allocation reviews with DAO governance

Target Allocation (Example: $175M Treasury):[image]

1.2 Risk management

Protocol selection criteria:

• Tier 1 audits by reputable firms.
• TVL >$100M, operational history >6 months.
• Team transparency and track record.
• Active security monitoring (Hypernative, Forta).
• Reputable team with enough treasuries to run at least 1 yr.

Position management:

• Maximum single protocol: 15% of deployed DeFi assets
• Minimum position: $100k (no dust)
• Defined exit criteria
• 24/7 coverage across all time zones

All protocol selections and positions >$500k validated by RockawayX and approved by Investment Lead + due diligence filed.

Operational controls:

• Gnosis Safe custody
• Multi-signature execution (DAO retains majority control)
• Segregation of duties (strategy, execution, monitoring)

1.3 Monitoring & reporting

Daily monitoring:

• Protocol health (TVL, governance, security alerts)
• APY tracking vs targets
• 24/7 exploit monitoring (Hypernative and our own monitoring tools)

Monthly reporting to DAO:

• Performance summary (total return, APY by position)
• Position-level breakdown
• Protocol allocation changes

Monthly strategy review:

• In-depth portfolio analysis
• Proposed allocation adjustments
• Risk assessment update
• Forward-looking opportunities
• Presentation to the DAO governance forum

PILLAR 2: Dashboard & Analytics

Real-time treasury visibility and KPI tracking

What We Do:

• Build a custom Dune Analytics dashboard (real-time portfolio tracking)
• Track KPIs: APY by protocol, gas costs, allocation breakdown, historical performance
• Integrate with DAO tools
• Public transparency portal

Deliverables:

• Dashboard development (4-6 weeks, one-time)
• Hourly dashboard updates (ongoing)
• Monthly KPI reports

PILLAR 3: Governance Support

This section covers governance-related services designed to support DAO decision-making, optimize voting outcomes, and align governance actions with treasury and long-term protocol objectives.

3.1 Governance strategy & positioning

• Definition of governance priorities aligned with GnosisDAO objectives (treasury protection, ecosystem growth, GNO value).
• Identification of high-impact governance venues (internal DAO proposals, external DAOs, emission and incentive frameworks).
• Strategic voting frameworks to:
  • Maximize Gnosis Chain-related incentives and emissions.
  • Protect long-term economic value and protocol sustainability.

3.2 Proposal analysis & voting support

• Continuous monitoring of relevant governance proposals.
• Structured analysis of proposals, including:
  • Economic and treasury impact.
  • Risk implications.
  • Strategic alignment with DAO objectives.
• Clear voting recommendations (For / Against / Abstain), documented and auditable.
• Execution of governance actions strictly within pre-approved mandates.

3.3 Governance monitoring & reporting

• Tracking of governance participation and voting power utilization over time.
• Monitoring of governance outcomes impacting treasury positions, incentives, or risk exposure.
• Monthly governance reporting:
  • Votes participated in.
  • Summary of governance decisions and outcomes.
  • Governance-related incentives or costs (if applicable).
  • Quarterly review of governance efficiency and strategic adjustments.

All governance activity is performed transparently and can be reviewed by DAO stakeholders.

RockawayX executes governance actions strictly within DAO-approved mandates and does not exercise discretionary governance authority beyond them.

Risk management Framework

The following framework applies across all deployed strategies and governance-related exposures.

Our risk management framework is designed around one core principle: prevention over reaction.

Every position is assessed as a complete risk stack: chain, protocol, asset, and strategy, with continuous monitoring and automated defensive controls.

This framework operates as a continuous process, not a periodic review. Each strategy is assessed across four interdependent layers:

1. Chain-level risk
2. Protocol-level risk
3. Asset-level risk
4. Strategy-level risk

No capital is deployed to a protocol until it passes our internal eligibility matrix. This standardizes decision-making across opportunities and focuses on concrete risk drivers.

Review depth is proportional to complexity and systemic importance. For money markets and complex protocols, enhanced due diligence includes:

1. Permission Mapping
2. Oracle Analysis
3. Liquidation Mechanics
4. Parameter Sensitivity Analysis
5. Integration Risks

24/7 Coverage Model

Unlike traditional asset management with business-hours coverage, DeFi operates continuously. Our monitoring framework provides:

• Automated monitoring: Bots checking all positions every 60 seconds

• On-call rotation: Team members available 24/7 including weekends and holidays

• Escalation matrix: Clear chain of command for different severity levels

• Geographic distribution: Team across time zones for natural coverage

Response Procedures

P0 - Critical Response (< 60 minutes)

1. Immediate assessment: Confirm nature and scope of incident
2. Position protection: Execute defensive actions (reduce, hedge, exit)
3. Communication: Alert GnosisDAO stakeholders within 1 hour
4. Documentation: Begin incident log immediately

P1 - High Response (< 1 hour)

1. Situation assessment: Evaluate impact and trajectory
2. Action planning: Determine required position adjustments
3. Execution: Implement plan with appropriate urgency
4. Stakeholder update: Immediate notification

P2/P3 - Standard Response

1. Monitoring: Enhanced observation of relevant metrics
2. Assessment: Evaluate if escalation is warranted
3. Documentation: Record in daily/weekly reporting
4. Review: Discuss in regular risk review meetings

6.3 Post-Incident Review

Every P0/P1 incident triggers a formal review:

• Timeline reconstruction: What happened and when?
• Detection analysis: How was it identified? Could it have been faster?
• Response evaluation: Were actions appropriate and timely?
• Framework update: What changes to prevent recurrence?
• Stakeholder report: Full incident report within 72 hours

Custody of funds

RockawayX is not a custodian of funds. The funds will be in possession of the GnosisDAO at all times.

Alignment mechanisms

Governance token	Up to 100% of the performance fees can be paid in $GNO (12-month linear vesting on GNO portion).
Overall cost	Overall costs are capped at 1.5M/years (12x 100k + 12x 25k).
Human resources	Two senior team members assigned full-time: Lead Portfolio Manager + Risk & Operations Lead.
Conflict Disclosure	Full disclosure of any positions in protocols where treasury is deployed.
Termination rights	90-day standard notice. 30-day accelerated notice for sustained KPI underperformance.
Vote Abstention	RockawayX abstains from all GnosisDAO votes related to mandate renewal, compensation, or scope changes.

RockawayX Ventures has been an early investor in Gnosis and its ecosystem, maintaining significant positions to this day. This long-term holding reflects our conviction in the Gnosis vision and ensures structural alignment between our interests and those of the DAO.

Fees and Compensation

FEE STRUCTURE SUMMARY

Fee Type	Amount	Covers
Monthly Retainer	$25,000/month ($300k/year)	Pillars 2, 3 (Dashboard, Governance)
Management Fee	0%	Pillar 1 (Asset Management)
Performance Fee	10% above base yield (wstETH for ETH, sUSDs for stables)*	Pillar 1 (Asset Management)

*Capped at 100k monthly, management & performance fee combined.

Implementation timeline

Setup phase

• Allocation design.

• Deployment of the risk-monitoring layer.

• Building the transparency dashboard.

Operational phase

• Deployment of the funds.
• Reporting on a monthly Basis.
• Weekly relocation analysis, executed when pertinent.

APPENDIX

• RockawayX Term of service slide
• Transparency dashboard proposal

[telegin]

Hello team, happy to be here. I lead UltraYield (by Edge Capital) and wanted to give a heads up that we want to share our RFP response here but unfortunately our corporate account was temporarily banned after attempting to send the message, so asking for the help with unblock and extension of the deadline for Edge Capital in case it doesn’t happen on time!