To all token holders. @arca submitted a proposal in June that benefits ALL token holders. We presented facts & details. We are now awaiting an actual response by .@gnosisPM & .@koeppelmann.
Thus far, Gnosis has simply provided more unsubstantiated promises.
Thread 👇
For those unfamiliar, the value of & USD in Gnosis' Treasury is worth $70 million, which would give every holder $153/token (currently trading at $58). This means Gnosis is destroying value for its tokenholders.
Gnosis had 3+ months since we first engaged them, yet below is their only response. We demand a formal response to our claims that includes a detailed, forward looking plan.
👇 is NOT a plan. This is a 2018 blog post attempting to justify past actions.
Unlike Gnosis who continues to act like a secretive hedge fund that uses tokenholder’s money to do whatever they please, the Arca team will happily respond to all questions and criticism. If we missed anything, please reply and we'll respond to that too.
Please explain @koeppelmann & @StefanDGeorge how anything you have shipped to date has accrued value to tokenholders? We provided detailed reasons for why the GNO token does not accrue value -- your turn for a rebuttal. No more "we'll share soon".
"We have been planning" is not enough. Every other successful project in this space communicates via detailed outlines. What does “community stewardship” mean? Give us transparency reports, a launch date, tangible proof that something is happening.
We're thrilled that you "foresee this becoming a focus", but once again, this was not laid out in your white paper nor communicated in real-time to your community. If this is your plan, spell it out for tokenholders.
These dialogues should be in public. Arca is a tokenholder & member of the community, as are hundreds of other tokenholders who, based on Twitter responses, are also in the dark on this so-called plan. Spell it out & give the whole community a voice.
You continue to talk about Ethereum, and how you support Ethereum. But don't forget Gnosis took from investors in the ICO and gave them back in return. You are long /short while long tokenholders await answers.
@StefanDGeorge Thank you for the opinion on tokenomics. However, the community is still waiting for the new tokenomics plan for your own token. When can we expect to see this plan?
Even anonymous founders of 2-week old projects are doing the right thing for their communities, & .@koeppelmann is impressed. How will 3+ year old centralized Gnosis respond to its own community who is constantly doubting progress & asking questions?
@yanivgraph We agree Gnosis created value for Ethereum; but not for . Long-term trust only comes from communication & forward planning. Do you own ? If so, demand that they give you detailed plans w/ dates & milestones & updated progress reports.
@TheTomPain This is all we are asking. A roadmap and a plan. Not too difficult of a request, nor are we and other tokenholders asking for something that is beyond the scope of basic corporate responsibility.
@AndrewDARMACAP no one questions their intelligence, kindness or integrity. We question their governance, priorities & communication. A company needs to follow through on ideas. Based on the whitepaper, has GNO done this? Do you own ? Demand more.
@odtorson You are correct, this is framing. We know there is no legal precedent here (yet). We are framing it this way b/c there is an expectation of delivery of value to those who provide capital. It is a loan, paid back either via utility or money.
@_mattyamamoto If is intrinsically worth zero, then this is a breach of fiduciary responsibility. The company and holders believe there is value. We believe the value is the cash we lent Gnosis, if they disagree, they need to prove otherwise.
@theblue_panda You are assuming the token is a utility & not a security. If it is a utility, then @gnosisPM needs to actually utilize in their products. If GNO provides no utility, nor financial gain, what would you suggest tokenholders to do?
@moo9000 Tokenholders do, & should, have rights & should play a role in governance & stewardship.
There are plenty of examples where investors have a voice w/out legal framework -- for example ESG investing. ESG investors are creating positive change.
@mattysino Agreed. A token in a growth industry would only trade at 29% of book value if investors don't trust management. Up to .@koeppelmann to change that -- build trust by providing holders what they want. Our money back, or a detailed plan.
@whattheusecase This is the response that all holders should have.
Tokenholders should demand new plans if they are unhappy with the current ones. Tokenholders have voices, so we encourage all tokenholders to speak up.
@MalthusJohn Good points! The entire digital assets community needs to exert pressure on companies that don't deliver. I'd love @MessariCrypto to voice an opinion - they stand for transparency & "Trust In Crypto". Where are they & others? Let's discuss!
Been tweeting / replying a lot today about the FTX court approved sale of crypto assets, so if you missed key points, here's a summary with a few updates:
1) Galaxy Asset Mgmt, not their trading desk, won the bid. They must act as a fiduciary & sell gradually & opportunistically
2) Galaxy is receiving massive amounts of reverse inquiry already (some from real funds, some fishing expeditions). But OTC sales will dominate the buying. Less likely to see a lot of selling on exchange or via TWAPs. As good bids come in, they will engage.
3) The $100mm max per week is really not relevant. They can ask for court approval if they get a bigger block bid, and they don't have to sell anything in any given week. The $100mm was just a guideline to prevent dumping and destroying value for the estate.
Mostly irrelevant since no one operates in the US anymore and a bunch of non-criminal charges for past wrongdoings don’t really matter.
I see 2 actual negatives from this: ⬇️
1) SEC explicitly defining certain tokens randomly as securities could lead to delistings on Kraken & coinbase or any other US exchange
2) negative sentiment effect if CZ is out and people loved him
That’s about all I see. Pretty benign otherwise.
From a market standpoint... how many times can you rally on the same news over and over again (2020 - corporates buying BTC) or sell off on the same news (2023 - SEC hates crypto)
2) Over the past 6 months we observed other $DYDX stakeholders highlight these same issues on DYDX’s public channels. We expect significant improvements to the value & sustainability if the tokenomics are fixed, especially as users move from CeFi to DeFi derivatives post-FTX
3) Arca has engaged the @dydxfoundation , DYDX Trading & major stakeholders to address some of these issues but have been met with resistance and apathy.
With product delays ahead of a major bear market unlock, it is time to make this discussion public.
Last week, Genesis filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection bringing restructuring negotiations to the public. While we cannot predict how negotiations will end, we pored through filings to synthesize lessons learned and where we might be headed.
Here are 4 key conclusions:
#1: The Genesis bankruptcy represents the end of the forced selling of assets—especially the Grayscale trusts. Gemeni liquidated about 5% of GBTC shares in November that was being used as collateral from Gemeni causing an artificial widening of spreads of GBTC to record levels.
#2: DeFi again proves to be superior to CeFi for risk management. We’ve written about this theme several times and now the Genesis bankruptcy is a prime example of the relative failure of CeFi.
The SBF saga / theatre at this point has no bearing on the market.
Here are 10 much more relevant digital assets stories to follow: 👇
1) Audits
Have you ever gone thru a crypto audit? The auditors are still learning themselves. It's one thing to prove you have assets in the wallet; it's quite another LONG ordeal to prove you have access to all of them.
1b) And auditors do not like to take risks (see the fallout of Arthur Anderson after Enron).
So if your base case is that "no audit = bad actor"... you may want to consider that "no audit may = auditors are scared of being wrong"