GIP-23: 2nd amendment to GIP-17. Add authority of Instadapp SCW to daughter Safe

GnosisDAO GIPs
#1

GIP-23: 2nd amendment to GIP-17. Add authority of Instadapp SCW to daughter Safe

  • Let’s do this!
  • Make no changes

0 voters 

GIP: 23
title: 2nd amendment to GIP-17. Add authority of Instadapp SCW to daughter Safe
author: @claberus
status: Phase 2
type: Meta
created: 2022-01-19 
requires: GIP-17 and GIP-21

Simple Summary

GIP-17 was successfully executed but some funds were not transferred to the daughter Safe due to different business and technical reasons.

GIP-21 amended GIP-17 and it was successfully executed but failed to transfer the ownership of the SCW 0xfa5dcf356a2d80cf0c89d64a18a742edaf8d30e8.

GIP-23 aims to complete the specification of GIP-17 and transfer all of the funds to the daughter Safe.

Motivation

Since the creation of GIP-17 several actions took place that modified the GnosisDAO’s treasury structure which were considered in GIP-21 except for the transfer of ownership of the SCW 0xfa5dcf356a2d80cf0c89d64a18a742edaf8d30e8.

Specification

Add authority of Instadapp DSA: 0xfa5dcf356a2d80cf0c89d64a18a742edaf8d30e8 to the Daughter Safe 0x849D52316331967b6fF1198e5E32A0eB168D039d

Edit: GIP-23 is on phase 3, please vote: Snapshot

Edit 2: GIP-23 didn’t reach the quorum. We are posting it on Snapshot again: Snapshot

1 Like
#2

GIP-23 is on phase 3, please vote: Snapshot

#3

GIP 23 is on Snapshot again, please vote!

https://snapshot.org/#/gnosis.eth/proposal/0x700338be6de83b533516bfed95f51a96dd6680cfae9751366b69a592e2d8386a

#4

Anything that we are doing different or do we just open the same Snapshot poll again?

I would love to know what we learned from the failed vote. In general it seems that there is not enough interest in this and it feels it is not the correct process to just reopen it without any further justification.

1 Like
#5

Also, I am unable to vote. Have locked GNO in Gnosis Safe on xDai. Not sure which of these is the reason.

1 Like
#6

Yes, it is the same snapshot that failed due to voters apathy.

This is just an operational proposal within the original scope of GIP-17 so it should not be controversial.

#7

I was not questioning this GIP :wink: this was more a Meta question (and therefore should probably not be discussed here) on how we handle proposals that fail because the quorum was not reacted. You could argument, that the token holders did not care and therefore it should not be executed. When following this line of argument then reopening the same proposal feel like we do not accept the outcome.

2 Likes
#8

Yes, you’re right. I agree.
We need clear rules and just reopening a failed GIP does not seem the proper process.

2 Likes
#9

Yes, you’re right. I agree.
We need clear rules and just reopening a failed GIP does not seem the proper process.