A lot of comments and questions regarding this CIP, I’m a bit shocked by the amount of obfuscated details in this proposal that was already moved to snapshot:
- First of all, there’s a clear misconnection between the “Motivation” and the proposal. karpatkey is not Cow. And the fact that Cow is a very successful product has nothing to do with any work karpatkey has done, nor justify allocating 80M COW tokens to you.
- Before moving forward with a further allocation and increase in fees, would like to understand what value has karpatkey added in the past year. The last report was posted one year ago. Furthermore, I don’t see any mention to fees in such a report.
- What does it mean that 42m COW will be utilised to “Development of CoW DAO products”? Are you gonna dump 40m tokens? If so, please stop the buybacks, why would we do buybacks with the revenues, but at the same time sell part of the treasury?
- Even if these tokens were to be allocated, if the plan is to use them over 4 years, why would we allocate them all at once? We should NOT pay any AUM fee for COW tokens. Those will be sitting in the wallet doing nothing until karpatkey manages to sell them. Let’s just do a TWAP and show everyone the most efficient way to diversify a treasury. But we don’t have to pay 200k COW/yr for doing this.
- Same for the Defense reserve, the solver rewards and the “strategic partnerships” fund. Why would we pay karpatkey for that? So that they can move the funds?
- I second what @BovineManure said above. Please, explain your contributions for getting COW listed on these CEXes. I have met some core team members who were not aware of the listing happening prior to their announcement. So you are suggesting that karpatkey knew about it prior to the team, and didn’t let them know?
- Limitation of liability clause: how come karpatkey, which is managing the entire treasury, will only be liable for a lesser amount than their quarterly fees? This is just absurd.
I’m not against engaging with karpatkey, but this proposal as it is written here IMO is just a no-go, it need a lot of reiteration and explanations before actually moving forward. But since it has already moved to snapshot, I will vote against.