I’m generally in favor of this proposal. However, don’t understand why we are choosing 3M GNO. Seems random to me. Why not 3.5M or 2.5M GNO? Was there some research conducted to support the number?
I’m in favor of this proposal, and i have a question : if not burned, how can we be sure that further proposal from the community couldn’t unlock these 7M GNO in the future ?
Support the reduction of the GNO supply.
But the specification section should be rewritten to be clearer. Some of the wording mixes current conditions with future state. Also, number conventions witb MM are not consistent globally. Gnosis DAO specifications should be clear to persons from any part of the Earth.
Appreciate that. Honestly few seem to listen and so I am content earning now 3000bps on my own portfolio and I have no incentive to further encourage the whales to take advantage dropping my returns even though I am pretty sure there is room for another 300-500M without too much of a return hit that could double GnosisDAO karpatkey treasury returns while also building liquidity tied to DAI. Karpatkey is already using Maker, Maker really wants more collateral and larger vault players. Literally a perfect match could be made for more stETH/ETH and Gnosis moving liquidity away from ETH and into GNODAI v2 and v3 LPs. There is absolutely no reason to burn 1.8B worth of collateral here, when it can be put to work for the DAO boosting weekly earnings way beyond $1M/week. imo.
Feel free to contact me via DM. Happy to consult with karpatkey for some GNO for consulting to help the DAO really kick treasury earnings into high gear. Can even tie 1/2 of the GNO fee to kpi’s on my suggestions btw. Burn the 6m GNO and the one pretty much resigns the DAO to dilution (via Gnosis chain incentives) and not building a strong GNO-DAI uniswap v2 which could be used to borrow and remain forever tied to ETH price dominating GNO price.
5 Likes