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?
2,026
24
本頁面內容由第三方提供。除非另有說明，OKX 不是所引用文章的作者，也不對此類材料主張任何版權。該內容僅供參考，並不代表 OKX 觀點，不作為任何形式的認可，也不應被視為投資建議或購買或出售數字資產的招攬。在使用生成式人工智能提供摘要或其他信息的情況下，此類人工智能生成的內容可能不準確或不一致。請閱讀鏈接文章，瞭解更多詳情和信息。OKX 不對第三方網站上的內容負責。包含穩定幣、NFTs 等在內的數字資產涉及較高程度的風險，其價值可能會產生較大波動。請根據自身財務狀況，仔細考慮交易或持有數字資產是否適合您。