MetaCartel messed up with its STAKE - how can we still be COW holders from the start?

Hello GnosisDAO and COWswap DAO members-to-be!

We’re excited for the launch of Cow, but… we messed up.

“We” is: MetaCartel Ventures ( , a group of individual angels organised as what probably was the first investment DAO .

We were an early validator on the xDAI chain, and MetaCartel and its individual members have helped promote xDAI.

Here’s the thing: the Moloch contracts we run on, require a few weeks throughput time to move out tokens (STAKE in this case) from treasury to an external address where we planned to exchange into GNO before the airdrop.

We started in time, but the process failed because there was a partial ragequit (for EOY tax reasons) during those weeks, so the full requested amount was no longer available in treasury (yes, bad coordination :-S ).

We started over, but won’t be in time for the COW snapshot date.

We would love to be ardent holders and supporters of COWswap too though :sob:!

Would you gals/guys have any advice on how to still participate. We fully understand that you don’t want to complicate the process (it is already stressful enough as it is)!


More on MetaCartel:

And this is the failed proposal: DAOhaus

I’m not an influential member here in any form, but thought I would lay out a few ideas to get the conversation started. To my mind, mistakes happen, and because MC has shown intent to swap ahead of time you should get the airdrop. That said, if we make exceptions for large/important community members and not others (would we do this for Anon#1 with 7 STAKE?) are we opening ourselves up to criticism. I think yes. There are two question here. 1. How feasible is this technically and 2. How do we maintain fairness? On 1, I can spitball a few ideas. We delay the snapshot to allow time for MC to swap. Easiest technically but might upset others. Or, we drop tokens from the 5% the DAO controls. Could be voted on by the DAO and i believe leaves DAO members in the same net position. They get a larger portion airdropped to them for holding GNO (MC doesnt get any so more for holders) but they get a smaller amount passed to GNO DAO (reduced by the amount given to MC). Personally, I prefer option 2. Everyone likes to control their own money so more dropped directly and less to the DAO sounds good. Still, we open ourselves up to criticism. That brings up point 2 – How to maintain fairness. I think we should ask MC to agree to voluntarily lock both their GNO and CoWdrop for some period of time. It isnt a serious punishment if MC is a long term holder (the only holder we should make concessions for) and helps alleviate the look of a “special deal.” Would love to hear other options for either of my two questions. My list wasnt meant to be exhaustive.

Oh and again, to avoid the appearance of picking favorites, we should probably offer the same deal to anyone before some date, say end of January.

I think every GNO holder and addresses that interact with cowswap should be airdropped token. fair distribution imo


Hi Viszla,

Delaying the airdrop was definitely not something that we wanted - and luckily it hasn’t happened, I am writing this more or less around the time of the snapshot.

In GNO Utility and Value Proposition I see there will be 400K allocated to GnosisDAO for ecosystem development. I think we will put up a proposal for the DAO to reward MetaCartel for past contributions with the amount of GNO that we missed by not being able to liberate STAKE from the treasury smart contract in time. Open to better ideas of course.


I would be in favor, assuming some form of lockup as is usual for allocations to contributors. Looking forward to the discussion on the new GIP

1 Like

I think similar proposal could also be made to CowDAO directly (once it is live).
Of course it’ll be beneficial to outline also ideas about future collaboration and contribution of Metacartel to CowSwap and Cow Protocol.
Anyway would love to see such proposal go live in due time.