I see Gnosis /kpk prefers creating new topics over replying to existing ones.
Fine. Let’s go over what has already been said a thousand times.
But before I begin—because an outside observer might think I have a personal grievance against them—I want to make something clear. I was a big supporter of kpk; I thought they were doing work that was crucially needed in our ecosystem by actively managing DAO funds. I even supported their contract with DYDX.
##########
1. Balancer sDAI/EURe pool.
The timeline is important: the pool was created on October 3, 2023, but kpk only detected the problem on February 20, 2025, a year and a half later.
The first questions are:
Why didn’t you notice this loss sooner?
Don’t you have any position monitoring tools?
What measures have you put in place to remedy this situation?
Then, once the problem was detected in February, you waited until March 4, 2025, to post a fix, but no communication was made to warn the public of this vulnerability.
We (DeFi France) rediscovered the problem on April 7, 2025, and the fix was applied a little later that same evening (French time). I then personally followed the matter closely because people close to me and I myself had lost money in this pool. After a few weeks, seeing that neither Gnosis (which I was still in love with at the time), nor kpk (whose competence I was beginning to doubt), nor Balancer had communicated about it, I decided to spend 2 weeks FULL-TIME FOR FREE analyzing and detailing the problem.
I privately shared my report with kpk and Gnosis on May 19, 2025, because I wanted you to be able to resolve the incident before it became public, which was proof that I was originally one of your supporters. But kpk dragged the issue out; every 3 days they assured me they would communicate about it, until June 30, 2025, when I decided to publish my report after weeks of waiting.
The questions:
Why did you wait 2 weeks before starting to fix the vulnerability?
Why didn’t you communicate about this vulnerability, while your community was losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, either before or after the problem was fixed?
Why didn’t you produce a counter-report if you were not satisfied with my figures?
Why did you choose to ignore arbitrages via deposits/withdrawals, as well as weekends in the calculation of losses?
Why haven’t you assumed full responsibility as the manager on GnosisChain?
##########
2. Managing liquidity in the Gnosis ecosystem
Liquidity is still a major issue on GnosisChain. USD<=>EURe swaps on GC have become less attractive than USDC<=>EURC on Base, whereas GnosisChain used to be number one. We also have several tokens that are directly or indirectly promoted on GnosisChain, yet little to no liquidity is available for them. The perfect example of this is the Safe boost incentive campaign, which promoted PoolTogether (an excellent product, by the way!), yet there is 0 liquidity available for POOL.
GNO liquidity is also nonexistent on most perps.
On-ramping is limited to few options.
Why is liquidity still such a problem?
Is this a choice by Gnosis Ltd, by you, or by both?
##########
3. The SafeBoost incentive campaign
Do I really need to spell out what’s wrong with it… The point of an incentive campaign is… to incentivize. Yes, the goal is to attract or retain users. To do that, we offer them rewards so they’ll try our product, and once they fall in love with it, they’ll keep using it.
Why was no dedicated website created?
Why wasn’t the incentive campaign accompanied by a marketing campaign to let the general public know about it?
Why did you choose to reward the top X users, meaning the wealthiest ones, when you knew perfectly well that the budget would make the amounts ridiculous for them?
Why not target, for example, only GnosisPay users, taking advantage of the Sybil resistance that GP provides?
##########
My frustration is matched only by my disappointment in kpk and Gnosis. Gnosis was one of the few projects that seemed to want to do something other than TradFi 2.0, but now I just feel like I’m watching a bunch of politicians, navigating between damage control and a slow but certain draining of the treasury.