tomi

Hilarious: Gnosis Ltd (the entity that took $30m/yr of DAO money and produced $400k of revenue for it) claims that there's some activist investors vying for a 'buyout at a premium', and how unfair this is to remaining GNO holders. Let's fact check that a little... We approached Gnosis Ltd saying that trading below NAV wasn't acceptable, need to close the discount. They agreed, and said they agreed with the NAV posted on their dashboard. Great. Then they randomly changed the dashboard and added 250k GNO from nowhere, 20% of circulating supply, ($30m/yr funding proposal was made on the premise that equity like claims would be extinguished => Ltd held GNO isn't circulating for NAV) Then they offered to OTC us out with a 7d TWAP. I know that they've been turning off buybacks unilaterally every time they agree one of these, so declined, and said that OTC at NAV was where we were at. (@Balancer @karpatkey did you know you both got rinsed on this btw?) Then they come out talking about how we are greedy and want an OTC at a premium (nice framing, ignoring that you trade at a negative operational valuation and we just wanted NAV - i.e. $0 value for the ops), without the actual greedy reintroduction of 20% of supply for no reason. Now, they are cutting their enormous 150 head count to a still ridiculous 110, for an entity making $400k/yr of ops revenue. They're planning to focus on 3 nepotism-driven products (Circles is the pet project of two of the three co-founders and is the absolute lowest PMF of any Gnosis product, for example). They are inviting a governance proposal to buy back to NAV (One already exists to pro-rata redeem any GNO that wants to exit at NAV), but also say that people pushing for GNO to trade at NAV are greedy (not the ppl extracting tens of millions for no return though!). We aren't going to let these guys continue to drain GNO holders' cash. GNO will trade above NAV for the first time in years and Gnosis Ltd, who are unlikely to be a service provider of the DAO in 3 months, can go and look for a new gravy train. The current proposal, and any successive ones, must not be buybacks at the whim of people who have been shown to lie, pilfer, and dilute people on the other side of their incentives. Our path forward sounds much fairer for GNO holders to finally trade >NAV than the status quo of having $30m taken every year for no return, and random introduction of supply to dilute the already dwindling NAV some more.