Gnosis DAO Faces Massive Treasury Redemption Proposal, "Treasury Raiders" Return

marsbitPublished on 2026-05-08Last updated on 2026-05-08

Abstract

A group of activist investors, often labeled as "treasury raiders," have submitted proposal GIP-150 to Gnosis DAO, calling for a one-time, voluntary, and proportional treasury redemption. The proposal would allow participating GNO holders to claim a share of the over $220 million in DAO reserves. Proponents argue this addresses the persistent and widening discount of GNO's market price relative to the treasury's net asset value. Despite recent DAO funding to Gnosis Ltd., the discount has increased. The current vote, closing May 12th, shows 65% opposition among early votes. The redemption would value each eligible token around $170, a ~30% premium to the current $131 market price. GNO held by Gnosis Ltd. is excluded. DeFi community reactions are mixed. Some commentators acknowledge the "risk-free value" (RFV) arbitrage logic but criticize the proposal as a short-term cash grab lacking legitimacy, as Gnosis never promised treasury backing for the token price. Others oppose it due to Gnosis's contributions to ecosystem infrastructure (Safe, CoW Swap, etc.). Founder Sebastian Bürgel lamented the targeting of respected builders. Aragon's team, previously targeted in similar RFV campaigns, called for better mechanisms to align incentives. This follows a pattern of 2023 RFV-style actions against projects like Rook and Aragon. Recently, Beefy Finance implemented a buyback to preempt such pressure. The proposal's author, Wismerhill, expressed past admiration for Gnosis but now sees...

A group of activist investors (or "treasury raiders") is targeting GNO token holders with a proposal for a treasury redemption plan.

GIP-150 proposes a one-time, voluntary, pro-rata treasury redemption. If passed, participating holders would share proportionally in a portion of Gnosis DAO's treasury reserves, which exceed $220 million.

The proposal comes less than six months after Gnosis DAO voted to remove its former treasury manager, KPK. The proposer, Wismerhill, stated that the market price of GNO has long been trading at a discount to Gnosis DAO's net asset value, and this discount has been widening.

He added that despite the DAO recently allocating $22.5 million to Gnosis Ltd, the discount of the token relative to net assets has only increased further, with GNO capturing minimal value accretion.

Voting on the proposal is now open and will close on May 12. Although support initially led by a significant margin, of the roughly 330,000 votes cast so far, 65% are currently against.

The redemption amount would be calculated pro-rata based on 1.3 million eligible GNO tokens, excluding tokens held by Gnosis Ltd. The proposal justifies this by stating that this entity already receives long-term financial support from the DAO.

Based on this calculation, the redemption value per token would be approximately $170, nearly 30% higher than GNO's current market price of $131.

Reactions from the DeFi Community

DeFi commentator and GNO holder Ignas admitted, "There's some logic to this RFV narrative," but also pointed out that "this is purely an arbitrage play, hardly an ethical one." He has voted against the proposal. (Note: RFV stands for risk-free value.)

Ethereum Foundation DeFi Lead ivangbi holds a similar view. Since Gnosis never marketed its treasury assets as a backstop for the token price, holders have no ethical right to claim a share of the treasury.

Many others, considering Gnosis's contributions to the ecosystem, also disagree with the proposal. Gnosis is the entity behind key infrastructure projects like Safe, CoW Swap, Gnosis Pay, and Gnosis Chain.

Gnosis founder Sebastian Bürgel asked pointedly, when did the ecosystem's most respected builders become targets for hedge fund harvesting? Jito ecosystem lead Nick Almond directly characterized the proposal as a blatant treasury dump-and-run.

Anthony Leutenegger, representing the Aragon team which faced a similar attack in 2023, offered a more nuanced perspective. He called for the industry to improve mechanisms for programmatic token holder rights to better align incentives and resolve such disputes.

Previous RFV Attack Cases

This group launched several similar treasury arbitrage campaigns in 2023, earning them the label "RFV raiders" in the industry, a term the group itself rejects.

Projects targeted that year included Rook, FEI/Tribe, and Aragon. Aragon was ultimately forced to restructure its treasury usage, converting it into an ecosystem grant funding program.

Just recently, when Beefy Finance's token BIFI fell below its treasury net asset value in April, the DAO quickly launched a buyback mechanism precisely to avoid a surprise arbitrage attack by RFV forces.

Regarding the current Gnosis situation, the proposer Wismerhill previously stated that he has always admired Gnosis DAO and predicted that after removing KPK, Gnosis would make more commercially-driven decisions.

This ongoing vote will ultimately test whether GNO holders value short-term commercial arbitrage gains or long-term ecosystem building value more.

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat is the primary objective of the GIP-150 proposal for Gnosis DAO, and how does it work?

AThe GIP-150 proposal aims to launch a one-time, voluntary, pro-rata treasury redemption scheme. If passed, participating GNO token holders would receive a proportional share of a portion of the over $220 million in Gnosis DAO's treasury reserves, based on 1.3 million eligible GNO tokens at a calculated value of about $170 per token.

QWhy are the proposal's supporters, like Wismerhill, advocating for this treasury redemption?

ASupporters argue that the GNO token price is trading at a persistent and widening discount to the net asset value (NAV) of the Gnosis DAO treasury. They believe the token captures minimal value from the DAO's assets, and recent funding to Gnosis Ltd has exacerbated this discount, justifying a direct distribution of treasury funds to token holders.

QWhat is the 'RFV' label mentioned in the article, and which other projects have faced similar proposals?

A'RFV' stands for 'risk-free value,' a term used to describe proposals where groups target DAOs to extract treasury value for token holders when tokens trade below NAV. In 2023, similar initiatives targeted projects like Rook, FEI/Tribe, and Aragon. Recently, Beefy Finance implemented a buyback mechanism to preempt such an attack.

QWhat are some of the key counterarguments from the DeFi community against the GIP-150 proposal?

AOpponents argue it is a purely speculative arbitrage trade with no moral justification, as Gnosis never promised to back its token price with treasury assets. Others oppose it due to Gnosis's contributions to the ecosystem (Safe, CoW Swap, etc.), viewing the proposal as a 'treasury dump and run' that harms long-term builders for short-term gain.

QHow does Anthony Leutenegger from Aragon suggest the industry address conflicts like the one at Gnosis DAO?

AAnthony Leutenegger advocates for improving programmatic token holder rights mechanisms. He believes better-designed systems can better align incentives and resolve such disputes, referencing Aragon's own experience where it adapted its treasury into a grants program after a similar challenge.

Related Reads

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbit12m ago

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbit12m ago

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Title: Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate A new technical proposal, BIP-110 (Reduced Data Temporary Softfork), has sparked a fundamental governance debate within the Bitcoin community. It aims to impose new consensus rules for one year to limit non-financial data (like inscriptions and Runes) on-chain, moving beyond simple node and miner policy filters to invalidate currently valid transactions. Supporters argue that default policies have failed due to workarounds, necessitating consensus-layer changes to protect Bitcoin's core monetary function from data spam. Critics, including Michael Saylor and Adam Back, contend this dangerously centralizes judgment, undermines permissionlessness, and sets a risky governance precedent. They advocate for market-based solutions like fees or Layer 2s instead. The debate exposes deeper tensions: miners are divided on activation; node operators assert their sovereignty; Bitcoin Core developers influence defaults without direct accountability; and large corporate holders like MicroStrategy now wield narrative influence. Technically, BIP-110 may not fully block data and carries a disclosed consensus bug risk. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a stress test, forcing the community to confront the unresolved question: who legitimately decides what Bitcoin is and how it evolves, amidst competing claims from miners, nodes, developers, and capital holders.

链捕手24m ago

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

链捕手24m ago

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

Zcash, a privacy-focused cryptocurrency, has launched a new full node software called Zakura version 1.0.0. Developed by Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe and Dev Ojha, with private ZEC donations, its goal is to enable Zcash to process over 50,000 transactions per second (TPS)—matching the scale of Visa and Mastercard—while maintaining full transaction privacy and verifiability. This addresses a key bottleneck, as Zcash currently handles only about 1 private transaction per second. Zakura is a fork of the Zcash Foundation's Zebra node. It features chain pruning and snapshots, reducing disk usage and allowing new nodes to sync in under two minutes. It also offers compatibility with the legacy `zcashd` client interface. The scalability challenge stems from the large data size of privacy proofs. Bowe's Tachyon project aims to use recursive proofs to reduce consensus-layer data needs from ~500 MB/s to ~100 MB/s. For wallet scalability, Valar Group is researching Private Information Retrieval (PIR) tech to allow wallets to fetch their data privately. Zakura supports fast block propagation and the upcoming "Ironwood" network upgrade (NU6.3), scheduled for activation around July 28th. Ironwood was created to contain a critical inflation bug discovered in the Orchard shielded pool in May 2024. The fix uses "turnstiles" to trap any counterfeit ZEC created during the vulnerability period within the shielded pool, preventing it from entering circulation and restoring supply integrity.

marsbit39m ago

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

marsbit39m ago

Replicating the "DeepSeek Moment"? Wall Street Unanimously Says: Kimi K3 Instead Strengthens Computing Power Demand

Title: Wall Street Sees Kimi K3 as a Catalyst for Compute Demand, Not a "DeepSeek Moment 2.0" Summary: Following the release of Moonshot AI's powerful open-source model Kimi K3, initial market reaction mirrored the "DeepSeek moment" that sparked a sell-off in compute stocks earlier in 2025, fearing reduced demand for AI infrastructure. However, major Wall Street banks including UBS, Nomura, BofA, and Citi argue the opposite: K3 will accelerate, not weaken, demand for compute, memory, storage, and networking. Their analysis centers on K3's specifications—2.8 trillion parameters, 1M token context, and MoE architecture—which represent a "scale" story rather than a pure "efficiency" one like DeepSeek R1. These features increase pressure on inference, memory (especially KV cache), and storage. Analysts invoke Jevons Paradox: as high-quality models become more affordable (K3 is cheaper than top closed models but not the cheapest), usage and token volumes expand, ultimately increasing total compute consumption. The reports highlight that competition will force leading US AI labs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) to invest more in training and iteration to maintain their edge. Furthermore, the rise of capable open-source models like K3 is expanding the global AI developer ecosystem, with Chinese models now accounting for over 45% of developer traffic. Key beneficiaries identified across the AI infrastructure chain include memory/storage players (e.g., Micron, Samsung), compute leaders (Nvidia, TSMC), networking suppliers (due to "super-node" cluster needs for deploying K3), and cloud platforms (e.g., Alibaba) that host diverse model ecosystems. The consensus is that stronger open-source models are an entry point for the next wave of infrastructure demand diffusion, provided workload growth outpaces efficiency gains.

链捕手42m ago

Replicating the "DeepSeek Moment"? Wall Street Unanimously Says: Kimi K3 Instead Strengthens Computing Power Demand

链捕手42m ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

How to Buy DAO

Welcome to HTX.com! We've made purchasing DAO Maker (DAO) simple and convenient. Follow our step-by-step guide to embark on your crypto journey.Step 1: Create Your HTX AccountUse your email or phone number to sign up for a free account on HTX. Experience a hassle-free registration journey and unlock all features.Get My AccountStep 2: Go to Buy Crypto and Choose Your Payment MethodCredit/Debit Card: Use your Visa or Mastercard to buy DAO Maker (DAO) instantly.Balance: Use funds from your HTX account balance to trade seamlessly.Third Parties: We've added popular payment methods such as Google Pay and Apple Pay to enhance convenience.P2P: Trade directly with other users on HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): We offer tailor-made services and competitive exchange rates for traders.Step 3: Store Your DAO Maker (DAO)After purchasing your DAO Maker (DAO), store it in your HTX account. Alternatively, you can send it elsewhere via blockchain transfer or use it to trade other cryptocurrencies.Step 4: Trade DAO Maker (DAO)Easily trade DAO Maker (DAO) on HTX's spot market. Simply access your account, select your trading pair, execute your trades, and monitor in real-time. We offer a user-friendly experience for both beginners and seasoned traders.

2.7k Total ViewsPublished 2024.03.29Updated 2026.06.02

How to Buy DAO

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of DAO (DAO) are presented below.

活动图片