I don’t know if you’ve been following the drama between @gnosisdao and @kpk_io but it’s getting ridiculous.
I’ve stayed on the sidelines, but after the latest @ensdomains endowment update, it’s time to speak up.
ENS just suggested a new structure that removes the performance fee entirely.
Sounds good at first glance. Cleaner, simpler, predictable.
But it's not.
If KPK accepted this change while also “cutting fees by 40 percent”… that means one thing:
They were massively overpaid since day one.
Otherwise they would have rejected it instantly.
The second issue is even bigger.
They removed the performance component, but kept the management fee.
Which means:
KPK now gets paid the same whether they outperform, underperform, or just sit in @aave.
Just use Aave @Marczeller
And let’s be honest… the last three years tell the story.
Net returns barely beat CPI. (Inflation)
If an asset manager can’t outperform inflation in crypto markets, what exactly are we paying for?
@nicksdjohnson
Asset management is supposed to grow the treasury, protect purchasing power, and actively manage risk.
An AUM-only model pays for custody not performance.
This isn’t alignment.
It’s a fee structure where the manager wins regardless of results, and the DAO absorbs all downside.
@ensdomains wake up.
DAOs deserve transparency, benchmarking, and real incentives.
DAOs deserve real performance from asset managers.
Happy to dive deeper, share data, or propose alternative structures that actually align incentives.
But pretending this is “good for the DAO” is false.
@alextnetto
These are the angels in KPK. Is there a conflict of interest?
Should we talk?

2,012
24
本页面内容由第三方提供。除非另有说明,欧易不是所引用文章的作者,也不对此类材料主张任何版权。该内容仅供参考,并不代表欧易观点,不作为任何形式的认可,也不应被视为投资建议或购买或出售数字资产的招揽。在使用生成式人工智能提供摘要或其他信息的情况下,此类人工智能生成的内容可能不准确或不一致。请阅读链接文章,了解更多详情和信息。欧易不对第三方网站上的内容负责。包含稳定币、NFTs 等在内的数字资产涉及较高程度的风险,其价值可能会产生较大波动。请根据自身财务状况,仔细考虑交易或持有数字资产是否适合您。

