Following the discussion around GIP-150, we came to the table with Gnosis team and put together a one-time pro-rata treasury redemption proposal, now live on the forum. Credit to @StefanDGeorge, who engaged constructively throughout. The result is a simple, fair, and reliable mechanism: liquid assets distributed in kind at NAV, ecosystem tokens like COW, SAFE, and HOPR passed through directly, redeemed GNO permanently removed from circulation. That burn matters for holders who stay. Every redeemed GNO is removed for good, so non-participants see their pro-rata claim on the treasury rise. This isn't a treasury drain, it's a clean choice that leaves stayers better off. GnosisDAO is at a turning point. The team increasingly recognizes that DAO funding can't be taken for granted without prioritizing profitability and adapting the cost structure to market realities. The recent economic cases shared for the three core business lines, Chain, Pay, and App, are a step in the right direction. GIP-150 made one thing clear: a meaningful base of holders wanted the option to realize their pro-rata share of the treasury rather than wait on a discount that keeps widening. This proposal delivers that option. With the next Gnosis Ltd funding round around the corner, this is the founding team showing they are listening to tokenholders, and giving holders a clean choice: double down on their conviction, or exit at fair value. Full proposal and worked example here: forum.gnosis.io/t/gip-xxx-sh…

$ENA DAT bought large chunk of supply, inc. removing a lot of the forward investor unlocks. coinbase bought open market Janus Henderson bought open market (always possibility they only bought $100k each but let's assume they bought something half decent) NEW LOWS, AGGRESSIVE SELLING RELATIVE TO REST OF MARKET ??? WHO STILL HAS FLOAT LEFT TO DUMP ON MY HEAD SO HARD AAAAAAA

Gnosis GIP-150 failed 28/72. Strip out Gnosis Ltd leadership's votes and it flips to 78% in favour. Non-team holders want a fair exit and an answer on the NAV discount. Leadership's response: maybe more spending, no exit. Longer version: GIP-150 did not pass. The final vote was 28% in favour, 72% against. Excluding Gnosis Ltd leadership’s tokens shifts the result to 78% in favour. Their personally held tokens are legitimate, circulating, and rightly count. It is only the Ltd-held GNO that we categorically reject as circulating until it is deployed on endeavours generating greater than 1x ROI. This breakdown matters because it makes a structural problem unavoidable. The same three individuals are Gnosis Ltd cofounders, Ltd executives, and as co-founders of Gnosis, the largest individual GNO holders. They are funded by the DAO, operate the entities receiving DAO funding, and hold the voting power that decides whether that funding continues. Their personal token votes are not cast as independent tokenholders weighing a proposal on the merits; they are cast in alignment with their roles as cofounders and directors of the entity the proposal affects. When the votes attributable to that concentration are removed, the remaining holders speak clearly: 78% in favour of a fair exit and an honest answer to the discount to NAV. What is currently being represented as “the DAO’s view” is in substance the founders’ view, voted through by founders, on a proposal that constrained the founders’ own operational latitude. That is not a decentralized DAO. The substance of the result is unambiguous regardless of how one feels about the specific mechanism. There is clear and undeniable support among GNO holders outside of Gnosis Ltd leadership for meaningful change, along with a mandate to prioritise trading above true NAV at the bare minimum and providing a fair exit mechanism for those unwilling to remain through another pivot. A protective mechanism for those willing to give the new vision a chance, without necessarily signing the entire treasury away to spending, should also exist. Both should co-exist, and become part of Gnosis DAO. The response from leadership in the days following the beginning of the vote has been the opposite of what a 78% non-team result calls for. Leadership has verbally floated a meaningfully higher operational spending envelope for the next funding cycle, as well as a hostility towards exploring a solution, while pretending there was interest from third parties to purchase participations in GNO, yet these third parties would not even buy it below NAV. Reading a result in which 78% of non-team holders signalled they want a path to realize NAV as a mandate to ignore an adequate exit solution and increase spending is not a tenable position. It is the precise inverse of what was voted for, and it confirms the concern that motivated this proposal: that operational discretion at Gnosis Ltd is being exercised without regard to the tokenholders the DAO exists to serve. We will give leadership a week to reflect on this striking result and consider whether they genuinely accept its implications. If they do, and wish to engage on shaping the next proposal to protect non-team GNO holders, we are ready to work with them. If leadership continues to disregard the outcome, we will have no choice but to bring forward a further proposal without their input. We trust that there will be no additional spending bruteforced through by these founder-held tokens, against the spirit of a decentralized DAO. Defensive voting with 385k GNO over disagreements on mechanism is one thing. Using that same concentration to force non-consensual spending increases against a vote that just produced a 78% non-team signal for value return is quite another, and would be impossible to reconcile with any claim that this is a tokenholder-governed organization. We look forward to engaging further with GNO holders to shape the proposal. Whether you are a long-term holder or a new holder, please reach out to provide input.

GIP-150 vote is now 54% against after an address that was funded from the Gnosis deployer 9 years ago voted against (probably a founder). If you remove the 2 related parties (Stefan, Gnosis founder and Ltd CTO), the voting is 83% in favour. I took the time to address some of Gnosis Ltd's points below.

The proposal to let GNO holders redeem their pro-rata share of the treasury has passed quorum and is now the most voted proposal ever. For people blessed with the ability to read long texts, you can catch the conversation here: forum.gnosis.io/t/gip-150-sh…

The proposal to let GNO holders redeem their pro-rata share of the Gnosis DAO treasury is now live. If you hold GNO, vote in favor. snapshot.box/#/s:gnosis.eth/… Here is why it exists: Gnosis Ltd, the operating company led by Gnosis' original cofounders and funded by the DAO treasury, is structurally misaligned with the tokenholders paying for it and is starting to act with hostility against them. Holders expect financially rational decisions and value accrual. What they have received is careless spending, no path nor consideration for profitability, and a management team that hides behind product pivots to mask the absence of product-market fit and stay away from having to make hard decisions. Ten months ago, Gnosis Ltd received $30M in DAO funding under GIP-128. Across the two quarters they disclosed revenue, the total was under $300k. They stopped disclosing it in Q1. Per the latest report, headcount sits at 132. They stopped reporting that too in Q1 (simply because it’s gross). This is not a company built to return value to GNO holders. It is a charity operation funding the founders' vanity projects and a pure cash sink. Pro-rata treasury value per GNO is currently ~$171, roughly 30% above market. That figure excludes the enterprise value of Gnosis Chain and Gnosis Pay, and marks the venture portfolio at the operator's own number, which is almost certainly conservative. The obvious question: why not buybacks? They are part of the treasury manager's mandate. They were on the table. Actually, buybacks have been stop-start to accommodate a dual mandate of value accrual to Ltd at the expense of purely focusing on returning to NAV. But this is also when Gnosis Ltd made their move. The treasury manager was ordered to reclassify 250k Ltd-held GNO as circulating supply, with no Snapshot vote, no GIP, no announcement. That single change would cut NAV per GNO by ~16.5% overnight. The implication is that Ltd holds those tokens as a separate beneficial owner with a claim on the treasury. That contradicts the purpose-driven entity structure under which Ltd was restructured in 2025. Those tokens are held on behalf of the DAO. They are not Ltd's to claim against. This proposal exists because the buyback path was poisoned at the source. Redemption gives every holder a way out at real NAV, on terms the operator cannot manipulate.