Dear everyone,
Thank you for the thoughtful responses here and in the community chats. We’d like to add context on why this proposal was put forward and address some of the concerns raised, mainly those outlined in @MidgetWhale’s post.
On alignment: GNS remains the largest beneficiary of gTrade’s growth, with most trading fees directed to buybacks and burns, including a dynamic share of negative trader PnL. Using OC funds for select integrator grants does not change that dynamic, especially with the suggested thresholds which are relatively small compared to overall protocol revenue. This framework allows to capture growth opportunities without altering existing revenue distributions or inflating the governance fund’s share.
On the governance fund: This budget has historically been focused on operational costs and remains tight. As it captures 24.5% of fees + 5.65% of buybacks [assuming no referrals’ revenue share], any growth initiative would need ~4.5x ROI to break even which makes most opportunities unviable. OC-backed grants make ecosystem-wide growth possible, benefiting traders, holders, LPs, integrators, arbitrageurs, and the governance fund itself, while keeping current distributions intact.
On counterparty utility: As GNS has been the counterparty of last resort, holders already trust contributors with risk management. This proposal seeks similar trust for growth decisions, with safeguards in place: multi-sig approvals, thresholds per grant or quarter, and transparent reporting. The team has already invested hundreds of hours into integrations funded by the governance fund, and these grants are about activating them (and new ones).
On slippery slope concerns: Safeguards and documentation are central to this proposal to ensure accountability and prevent open-ended commitments. We believe grant outcomes often follow a power law distribution: some will deliver modest or disappointing results, but a some could yield outsized benefits that drive the ecosystem forward. Capturing those requires initial capital and tolerance for experimentation, conditions the governance fund alone cannot provide.
‘Network Effects’ are an important element of our 2025 roadmap and vision and we’d like to bring +EV opportunities to the ecosystem that governance fund-backed ROI requirements would exclude. We respect that not everyone may see it the same way, but we believe this is a sensible and intentional step toward compounding long-term growth for gTrade and GNS.
Please keep the feedback coming as we plan to move this to a Snapshot vote toward the end of this week.