The governance forum for GnosisDAO and the Gnosis ecosystem — propose and
debate Gnosis Improvement Proposals (GIPs), follow treasury and delegate
updates, and help shape what comes next.
Vote: Noctua (Noca) → SEEDLatam → GFX Labs → Re7 Capital → RockawayX → Perseus & MainNet → Hyperithm → Tulipa Capital → FIL Strategies → AlphaGrowth → Edge Capital → K3 Capital & Sumcap → MAXYZ → MEV Capital + Lucidly → Gami Capital + Stake DAO → Impossible Finance (Sheeki) → rethink.finance → Avantgarde → yields.digital → Regen Financial → Superform → EXA + Gauntlet → None
Rationale: I support Noctua (Noca) and SEEDLatam as top choices given their strong crypto native treasury experience, clear mandate alignment, and pragmatic approach to risk, reporting, and governance participation.
Both teams demonstrate a solid understanding of GnosisDAO’s multi-asset, on-chain-first treasury needs.
The remaining candidates are ranked to reflect a general preference order among credible providers.
Approval exploits remain one of the most common attack vectors in DeFi. While this grant does not generate direct revenue, mitigating downside risk is valuable for any ecosystem.
Strengthening wallet security and user protection supports long term trust in Gnosis.
I would appreciate quarterly reporting or a clearer cost breakdown to ensure transparency and accountability.
This proposal follows the classic RFV Raiders playbook: identify a DAO where token market cap trades below treasury NAV, accumulate tokens, force a redemption vote, then extract the arbitrage. The ~24% discount between GNO’s market price and its NAV per eligible token makes Gnosis a textbook target.
Tokens trading below NAV during a bear market is not a signal to wind down. The market has consistently mispriced long term infrastructure projects in down cycles.
The proposal also misprices Gnosis Ltd’s actual value. NAV is not intrinsic value: brand, products, partnerships, and ongoing revenue base aren’t in the $223M treasury number. Voting yes prices Gnosis Ltd ops at $0, even though Gnosis Pay, Circles, and Gnosis Chain have real users today.
There are better paths than redemption: treasury-funded buybacks below NAV that arbitrage the discount without dissolving operations, cost cuts at Gnosis Ltd (150 to 110 headcount is a start but still oversized for current revenue), governance changes weighting long-term holders, or M&A at fair value. None require voting yes on GIP-150.
More importantly, if this passes, every other DAO with treasury > market cap becomes the next target. The precedent is more damaging than the proposal itself. Builders at any DAO-funded entity will operate under permanent sudden-redemption risk, and bear markets make this worse as more DAOs trade below NAV.
I am voting against not to defend the status quo (yes Gnosis Ltd owes holders far better transparency and accountability) but because this proposal hands a clean arbitrage exit to coordinated raiders at the expense of genuine long-term holders and the builders depending on this treasury to keep working.