Release G-UNI as separate DAO from Gelato & rebrand it as Arrakis Finance

there are a lot more nuances to that that you are not considering.

  1. G-UNI will be even more successful with a strong token model, i.e. emissions to high earning G-UNI pool. This would currently mean that we would have to pay out GEL to these pools, which would over the short to medium term lead to more pressure on the price. With a new token, this would not affect GEL holders
  2. The narrative will be much easier for users and investors. Right now Gelato and G-UNI already get confused a lot, whereas if you separate the concerns, people can invest in what they really believe in, which is either G-UNI as automated liquidity management system vs Gelato as a general purpose automation infrastructure for web3
  3. Having 15% of something very valuable is significantly better than having 100% of something less valuable. Moreover due to instant liquidity, GEL holders will be able to accumulate more SPICE at the very beginning by getting a boost on SPICE emissions due to them having locked SPICE right at the beginning.
  4. Isolation of risk. As you know we recently had to use some of the GEL treasury to pay refunds to those who lost some of their money in the December Sorbet Finance vulnerability. These risks also paint a bad picture on Gelato as an infrastructure, which actually had nothing to do with it. Isolating projects into their own communities help to isolate the risk of these things happening in the future.

I see this proposal by @kassandra.eth as a clear win win for a) the customers (e.g. frax, fei, angle) who are looking for extra token incentives on top of their native rewards, b) for GEL holders who get an additional airdrop and enjoy the upside of a project with very high potential and c) for Gelato as a development team because it can focus exclusively on the infrastructure rather than having to venture into the application layer which distracts form our core mission


Too much of a rush for such an important decision…I believe this should have taken a week more for debate


This is a completely ridiculous proposal without first specifying the full tokenomics of $SPICE. As is, GEL holders have no idea what they are giving up 85% of their ownership of the G-UNI product for.

Are the remaining 85% of $SPICE earmarked, solely, to liquidity mining and to the Arrakis DAO? Great! Absolutely a good proposal.

Most any other allocation looks like a cynical siphoning off of the vast majority of the one Gelato product with any real prospect of actual value accrual.


We will go into more depth and detail in subsequent posts but here are the basics of the $SPICE distribution

Screen Shot 2022-03-14 at 12.07.52 PM

The 50% emissions to LPs will be released over a 7 year period:

16% will be released linearly in year 1
11% in year 2
8% in year 3
6% in year 4
4% in year 5
3% in year 6
2% in year 7

How these emissions will be distributed to LPs (gauge system similar to Curve) is out of scope for this post but will be described in detail soon.

Note that initial circulating $SPICE supply will only be 2.5% (user airdrop) plus the GEL airdrop for liquid $GEL staked (assuming all vesting and liquid $GEL locks this would be another ~2% roughly, though could theoretically be much more if not all of the vesting $GEL participates). The project airdrop will be delivered in 6 month vote escrowed $xSPICE so will not be immediately liquid.


This feels really rushed in a very quite market. Give us time to understand and to have meaningful conversations about it. What about a community call for instance?

I’m 100% behind gelato’s team, but I’m not sure this is very favorable for $GEL holders.

When investing in startups, investors understand that the product can change course and even shift 360°. I’m wondering why G-UNI should be threated differently. It’s clearly a fruit of $GEL and revenue from it should flow towards it’s early believers.


yes, a community call is a great idea! Let’s set one up for tomorrow!


Definitely understand the comments on timelines seeming rushed in regards to scheduling the vote, but I’m confident we can reach a happy compromise there and give proper time for discussion and for formulating decisions, but also still move fast during this time window of opportunity. Developments in terms of upcoming G-UNI integrations mean that if it is indeed the will of the voters to go through with this, it may make practical sense to try to do so rather quickly - happy to speak more about this in the aforementioned community call.

1 Like

Why tomorrow? Give people some time :slight_smile:


Just set up a Twitter Space -

We can’t wait to chat with you all and answer any questions you might have.

See you tomorrow!


I think the spice tokenomics should clearly split % going to

Liquid gel stakers


Vesting gel holders.

Vested Team will own a massive amount of the 15% ontop of their 22% allocation.

I think we just need to split the two better.

5% to liquid gel

15% to vested gel

17.5% to team

I’d be able to understand this more effectively than how things currently stand.

1 Like

we kind of already split this into 2 fractions by having liquid GEL holders receive liquid SPICE whereas vested team and investor GEL holders will receive vested SPICE. The future team will of course have a similar vesting

crypto moves fast Ser :wink: no time to rest

1 Like

Its really undefined how much spice liquid gel holders would receive. In the original post, if all vested gel locks, that means liquid gel would only be receiving 2% or so of supply (I see the liquid Gel as our community). It just seems low considering 13% of the distribution will be going to vested gel, most of which is controlled by the team already. On top of this theres also another team allocation for spice in the chart at 22.5%. This puts team allocation around 30-35% which seems a bit high in my opinion. I think we can meet somewhere in the middle here for a more well rounded distribution. Separating the two and moving some numbers around just a little bit does this very effectively.


Note: The Arrakis team will not be the Gelato team, but a completely separate team consisting of different individuals, led by ex core gelato developers. So the team allocation will be e.g. 15% or so for the new team and the core gelato team will get part of the 15% for locked GEL holders.

There were periods we didn’t hear anything from the team from quite some time.

So this is really strange for me. We got a rushed proposal when crypto engagement is at it lowest and a forced community call the day after a controversial proposal and it all must go fast.

I’m out, too much 3D chess pvp vibes.

Too bad I really liked you and dave + the product was very appealing.

Wish you all the best.

1 Like

All makes sense. It’s definitely important to note that the “Team/Investors” portion is for new investors and team members of Arrakis not just the exact same team and investors of Gelato. While there can be overlap–there will be Gelato team members who move full time to Arrakis, others who will have no involvement–they are still not the same. These “Team/Investor” tokens will be used to grow a new team around the project, and to secure new funding from investors.

I also want to re-emphasize that those gelato participants who actively participated and used our G-UNI product (before Jan 1st 2022) are receiving a significant airdrop, no locking necessary, split evenly among all eligible addresses. That means that those people who believe in Gelato and G-UNI, i.e. those who are long $GEL and have provided liquidity via G-UNI, could receive two spice airdrops. One for locking their $GEL and participating as a $GEL holder, and another for having been a G-UNI LP. For me this is quite meaningful, as holding $GEL isn’t the only way to support gelato network, you can also be a user of our products! The idea is to distribute the $SPICE supply to those who are most aligned in our vision to provide and govern over open tokenized positions and strategies on top of Uniswap V3. Certainly $GEL holders must and are being considered, but so do the early LPs and projects who directly engaged with the project and provided crucial initial traction.

1 Like

Id still strongly advise re-thinking allocation to liquid gel community of supporters/believers, as it is community who will ultimately make/break a protocol. 2% to community is not very much. I think one of the largest problems with gel tokenomics was the fact that community was forgotten/left out. I cant help but feel “left out” if the token distribution stays as is. A project can have a great team and a phenomenal product but poor tokenomics and poor inclusivity for community can have devastating effects, as we have seen. Would hate to see it play out two times in a row considering how amazingly talented gelato team is.


I would still recommend just slight changes to the distribution model. My proposed numbers are not drastically different and will make a much larger positive impact on $gel. Giving more $spice to liquid $gel taken off market and locked up will create a much better effect for all parties. OG Gelato Team, new Arrakis team, and gelato community will all benefit more from these slight changes. Would at least give me more confidence that Arrakis understands that the community is important and should be taken care of.


Like a post on telegram said, I hope there is an option to vote YES to Arrakis but with the addition of tokenomics still being up for discussion. I don’t think the gelato community is going to reach a consensus on tokenomics by the end of this week.

1 Like

Current $GEL holders, should receive $SPICE without any locks or max (3month). This will make all $GEL bagholder support group much happier