Gnosis Treasury Redemption Vote Swings as Whale Counters Cofounder

A live Snapshot vote on Gnosis DAO is asking $GNO holders to authorize an opt-in redemption mechanism that would allow any holder to surrender tokens for their pro-rata share of the DAO treasury, reigniting one of crypto’s longest-running debates over whether token holders or operating companies have the stronger claim on a DAO’s balance sheet.

The tally has swung twice in 24 hours: first against the proposal after Gnosis co-founder Stefan George voted against it earlier today, then back in favor after a single large wallet with 67,000 $GNO voted for it.

Tally of Votes

The proposal currently sits at roughly 116,000 $GNO For (~65%), 59,600 Against, and 1,600 Abstain, clearing the 75,000 $GNO quorum with voting open until May 12.

$223M Treasury

Per analyst Ignas, the Gnosis treasury holds roughly $223 million in $ETH, stablecoins, and ecosystem tokens, with about 1.3 million $GNO eligible to redeem against it. That works out to roughly $170 of treasury value per token.

$GNO last traded near $132, implying a 27% discount to NAV, or about $38 per token if redemption executes. Backers have flagged the figure as conservative, since it values Gnosis Chain and Gnosis Pay at zero and marks the venture portfolio at the operator’s own internal number.

The structure is opt-in. Liquid assets ($ETH, stables) would be distributed at face value, while illiquid positions, including off-chain investments and Gnosis Ltd. equity, would convert into a claim token, gLTD-CLAIM, that pays out as value is realized. Non-participants, in theory, are not forced into a wind-down.

The Case for Redemption

Investor Wismerhill argues that Gnosis Ltd. has become a “cash sink” structurally misaligned with the holders funding it. Per his post, Gnosis Ltd. received $30 million in DAO funding under GIP-128 ten months ago. Over the two quarters in which the company disclosed revenue, the total was under $300,000, and disclosures stopped in Q1.

The flashpoint, per Wismerhill, is a quiet treasury reclassification. The DAO’s treasury manager was instructed to reclassify 250,000 Ltd.-held $GNO as circulating supply, a change he says would cut NAV per $GNO by roughly 16.5% overnight. He claims it was executed without a Snapshot vote, a GIP or a public announcement, and contradicts the purpose-driven entity structure under which Ltd. was restructured in 2025.

Another supporter, chud.eth, noted that GnosisDAO raised 250,000 $ETH at its 2017 ICO and now holds under 85,000 $ETH worth of assets, with no significant operating revenue between then and now and substantial $ETH-denominated salary spend in the interim.

The Case Against

Safe co-founder Lukas Schor pushed back using dollar terms instead of $ETH. Per his post, GnosisDAO raised $12.5 million in 2017 and now controls more than $200 million in assets without any further fundraising, while building “a ton of value for the industry.”

Ignas, who voted against, framed the proposal as the latest iteration of the “RFV Raiders” playbook that previously triggered the Rook wind-down, the Fei wind-down at Tribe DAO, and the campaign that pushed Aragon to repurpose its treasury. He acknowledged the underlying logic, that holders have grounds to question why they should keep funding Ltd. while their token trades below NAV, but argued the proposal would also defund Gnosis Pay, Circles and Gnosis Chain, all of which have real users, and noted that tokens trading under NAV is a common feature of bear markets that often resolves over time.

He also flagged a contagion risk. If the proposal succeeds, every other DAO trading below NAV becomes a target.

Familiar Territory

The dynamic is not new for Gnosis. In 2020, hedge fund Arca pushed for a $GNO tender offer on the same logic that $GNO was trading well below the book value of its underlying assets. Arca’s then-CIO Jeff Dorman argued at the time that any token trading below the book value of its DAO should “immediately” face calls for liquidation.

This article was written with the assistance of AI workflows. All our stories are curated, edited and fact-checked by a human.

Source