Should GNO holders be able to vote even if their GNO are invested/staked/locked in Smart Contracts in different protocols/networks?

Currently, GNO holders can only vote on a proposal if they’re holding GNO in their wallets on Mainnet. This implies a significant opportunity cost, since instead of just holding them, they could obtain a return by using them as collateral to take loans, provide liquidity to pools, validate in the GBC, farming, etc.

If this proposal was approved, GNO holders would be able to obtain financial benefits in different protocols/networks without renouncing their voting rights on the Gnosis forum.

Currently, it’s possible to add 8 strategies to Snapshot.

These are are some options in the DeFi ecosystem where holders might want to invest their GNO tokens:


Thanks for gathering some details on the existing GNO liquidity sources. This does indeed seem quite comprehensive and I would also vote in favour of such a proposal.

It is worth noting that this is a long outstanding GIP-8 (GIP-8: Enable LP token voting on Snapshot) that addresses this very same proposal - although it is rather outdated and the current liquidity is in many different places now.

I don’t think any GNO holder would be against such a proposal, but I suspect the reason it has stagnated for so long is that we are still lacking a concrete implementation plan.

Integrating such a feature, while entirely possible, would require infrastructure for determining exactly how much GNO should be credited to the LP tokens at, say a given moment in time. For traditional AMMs such as UniswapV2 (and similar) or even Balancer this amounts to fetching the pool reserves, the total supply of the LP token corresponding to the reserves and computing how much GNO corresponds to 1 LP token. This is relatively straightforward, but it gets a bit more complicated when trying to perform the analogous share holder representation for Uniswap V3 liquidity - since the LP token is actually an NFT representing how their liquidity is concentrated along the curve.

As a community member, I would be very keen to see this happen and willing to contribute some time to assist with implementation planning. However, I think that providing a concrete plan would be required before moving into the next steps.

Another thing to note is that we would likely have to introduce just a few liquidity sources initially and as time goes on, depending which sources remain substantial/relevant, add support new ones as the ecosystem changes.


But we’re not the first project to face that – I am 90% sure that’s already solved, if not, you can always calculate the global state for each position? See 6.2 in the uni v3 wp.

I am 90% sure that’s already solved

Yes, I wasn’t suggesting its impossible, but rather more involved. I mostly wanted to highlight that each of the different liquidity sources would require a different integration - so that such an endeavor would be manual and require maintenance as the liquidity shifts around to different (not yet supported) protocols.

xDAI is using multichain and delegation with parameters.


@alear thanks for this important initiative.
Could you amend your first post with numbers of how much GNO are currently in all those protocols? This would make the discussion much easier.

Also - I would add GNO tokens that are simply on other chains (e.g. Gnosis Chain). This would be the very first step - it would be a shame if you can’t use your GNO on Gnosis Chain to vote in Gnosis DAO.

Regarding the 8 strategy limit - you can theoratically engineer around it (xDAI team did that) by writing aggregation contracts that read balances from different sources and use those aggregators as strategies.

But I am not sure we need that at this point.


If one is using snapshot it shouldn’t be that hard to include liquidity positions.

Also I consider it almost imperative for governance and the health of communities like Gnosis for users to be able to earn return by providing liquidity AND still be able to participate in governance.

I will be pushing for this in MakerDAO and would like to see this move forward for Gnosis.

Given GNO is going to be used on Gnosis chain (formerly xDAI) and GNO is going to be used for liquidity rewards I would like to see GNO liquidity in sushiswap, honeyswap, symmetric, swapr, Agave, Cowswap (when it arrives) be included in voting. In fact I was disappointed that the GNO I now own in the auction contract is excluded. But since I have put it up for sale it makes sense. I also realized my STAKE which will also convert to GNO at .0326 is also excluded - but also makes sense not to include STAKE not converted…

At some point I will establish a firm GNO holding but more than likely it is going to be in a LP and not just sitting doing nothing in a wallet.

Given the above I agree with:

Please seriously consider doing this

1 Like

Hi! Thanks for your support @mkoeppelmann

Balancer V2 WETH/GNO → 68,147 GNO
Balancer V1 WETH/GNO → 2,400 GNO
Uniswap V3 ETH/GNO → 65,800 GNO
Uniswap V2 ETH/GNO → 362 GNO
Bancor GNO/ETH → 835 GNO

Honeyswap GNO/xDAI → 808 GNO

Balancer WETH/GNO → 5,806 GNO

Gnosis Beacon Chain:
Validate blocks (staking GNO) → 10,762 GNO

Total GNO= 153.7 kGNO


I found 2 other proposals very similar to this one.

Anna’s proposal is in phase 2 so it’s quite clear this is something the community wants.

@alear Let’s add the top strategies by GNO holdings including Gnosis Chain, move to phase 2 and try to get to snapshot asap.


There is too little public discussion on this topic to reasonably conclude that it is ‘quite clear’ this is something the Community wants.

Most other Communities that offer similar forms of voting require a wallet holder have unfettered tokens in the voting wallet at time of snapshot to participate in a ballot. This encourages active participation and helps moderate the incredible imbalance that can exist when large funds, pools or insiders are allowed to vote with effectively sequestered assets.

A critical point is if staked or loaned assets are allowed to be voted, there is virtually no ability to control multiple votes being cast with the same assets. For example, original holder loans asset to a pool, borrower withdraws to a fresh wallet, then stakes in a third location. Two votes or more could be cast in the case case, with possibility of 200% or (more) voting weight than the original asset amount.

If you are investing your GNO, great! Consider the invested amount as you would any investment such as bonds, 401(k), annuity, etc. Invested funds are not available without action; those assets cannot vote.

If you want to vote, keep some assets (GNO in the case) in a wallet to vote in case snap ballots are created. How much you intentionally hold for voting is up to you. If you want to sponsor a campaign and have extra voting power, make sure to withdraw your GNO to a wallet so it is unencumbered in time for the snapshot.

Requiring these procedures as most blockchain voting systems seems to do allows the Community to track asset flow and better understand what might be happening before announcements are made; this helps keep the Community active and strong.

Finally, it is critical that GNO on xDaiChain (now Gnosis Chain) be allowed to vote. I doubt many, or any GNO holders at all knew or even considered the possibility that voting would not be available.

1 Like

Other communities are clueless if they’d rather have their tokens idle in their wallets instead of being used in DEFI . How can idle GNO encourage active participation? GNO is not a tradfi stock. Applying GNO to different DEFI protocols gives utility to the token and improves GNO overall:

  • GNO holders providing to AMM are natural price defenders by automatically buying when price drops.
  • GNO holders providing to lending pools provide liquidity and tools for traders.
  • GNO validating blocks protect Gnosis Chain.

I really wish everybody utilised ALL their GNO, but it’s risky and requires time and effort. These DEFI users provide a valuable service to GNO and their voice should be heard.

The attack vector for money markets you mentioned that allows to borrow same assets is valid. Maybe we should not allow voting for GNO on protocols like Aave, Agave or Compound.
Thanks for raising that up! @1proof

I agree with your final point, GNO must be available to vote on Gnosis Chain.