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

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


I think it’s completely unreasonable to expect people to vote on this in a day without the specifics of the $SPICE tokenomics being released. Why the rush? And crypto moves fast is not a valid answer.


Answer regarding how GEL will accrue value if G-UNI has its own SPICE token (which is probably the most important topic to discuss):

GELs token model remains fully intact and will also be much cleaner without any secondary inflation like token model that is required for projects like g-uni to really fulfil their full potential, that’s the only reason why I support the proposal of spinning g-uni out of Gelato as one of the largest GEL holders myself.

It provides GEL with a much cleaner narrative and enables us to fully focus on making Gelato the largest automation network in web3, while still enabling all GEL holders that are long term committed to enjoy the potential future benefits of an increased usage in G-UNI which will be fuelled by its crv like inflationary token model. Think curve tokenomics, uniswap v3 efficiency plus automated strategies in one protocol.

Otherwise why would I even support this? I’m not interested in diluting my own bags obviously.

In regards to GELs token model:

Executors have to acquire GEL tokens and stake them in order to participate in the network to gain access to the revenue generated.

The more transactions are executed via Gelato, the more revenue they will make and the higher the value of GEL will become due to increased demand for them.

Revenue comes from two sources: 1) transaction fees charged on top of each transaction and 2) market opportunities that can be taken advantage of by back running transactions (probably significantly greater than 1).

For example, executing a limit order on pancakeswap worth $1M creates arbitrage opportunities that Executors can use to generate a significant revenue which will increase the value of being able to take part in the Gelato Network, which will translate into GEL being worth more.

We are currently heavily optimizing for increasing the number of transactions because this will be the most important factor determining the future success of Gelato in the long run.

GEL staking, similar to ETH 2.0, is done by operators of the clients as they are doing the work and are also running the risk of getting punished for being down.

For passive GEL holders, I could imagine that services similar to Lido will emerge that will provide regular holders access to GEL staking rewards without having to actually do the hard work by charging a fee on the revenue earned by these GEL holders.

Also we are thinking about whether some sort of delegation makes sense, but this is still yet to be determined.

I see this proposal set forth by Kassandra as a huge chance for GEL holders to have a key stake in 2 awesome projects, one being an infrastructure play and one on the application layer, without mixing up two completely different token models and creating confusion about what Gelato really is about.

I am 100% convinced that owning 15% of the SPICE supply will be worth more than owning 100% of G-UNI internally in Gelato in the long run, otherwise I would have no incentive for actually supporting this proposal.

1 Like

Basically any lockup followed by a huge unlock can tank the market too much, e.g. yesterday’s whale pool claim. The difference here is probably that the impact is expected to be smaller if retails’ $GEL and private investors’ $GEL don’t unlock at the same time.

The situation can be different if $GEL has a veTOKEN style lockup where there are incentives to constantly relock $GEL, i.e. revenue sharing, $GEL staking, etc. Although, these are too uncertain at the moment (maybe @gitpusha can shine some light on it?). I personally also think that we need such incentives or some other work to improve the existing $GEL tokenomics. It would be a shame to see $GEL become another $GNO, i.e. a great team and project, but wrong tokenomics.

Regarding the $SPICE airdrop, I see a couple of alternatives here:

  1. No lockup, snapshot right now, and make all airdropped $SPICE liquid. Low float at the beginning is not necessarily a good thing anyways (FDV issue), and having airdropped $SPICE liquid can also quickly weed out the short term sellers, and additionally act as a testing stone to the private investors that will receive the airdrop (it may not directly reflect their conviction in $GEL, but at least some indication I guess).

  2. Lockup, make all airdropped $SPICE liquid, but both retails and private investors bear the same terms (ideally much less than a year), i.e. for retails, the lockup is x months; for private investors, the lockup is x months after their cliff finishes

Regardless, I think people need to realize that a lot of the negative views on the current plan are the result of a suboptimal $GEL tokenomics. The best way to resolve this is always to go from the first principle. Of course, time pressure is also there (market doesn’t wait for anyone). So a middle ground solution is most likely needed.

Happy to hear feedbacks from the team @hilmarx @gitpusha @kassandra.eth


22% to “Team and Investors”??

Who are the investors other than GEL holders who basically funded the development of G-UNI??

Why is the team, who’s shady been paid by GEL investors to develop G-UNI, getting an extra allocation here instead of reaping the value captured by the GEL tokens they’ve already been paid?

Guys this is a blatant cash grab and fuck you to GEL holders.

100% of the value captured by G-UNI should be going to GEL holders and the community.

Anything else is a rug and will decimate the reputation of the project and the team

1 Like

As far as we know, that’s for the new team (new hire) and future investors

GEL has already a thin circulating liquidity, by locking more GEL for a year how this will affect the general GEL market ?Or the intention is to make it untradable for a year?Isnt that a concern?

We are continuously working on adding more protocol owned liquidity into Uniswap! The first Olympus Program was just finished and we will continue to add more over the next weeks! It just takes time, doesnt happen over night.

1 Like

Important update: due to the high volume of heated discussion about the specifics of this proposal, we have moved the vote to start on Monday March 21 (one week from date proposal was posted). We will also be voting on multiple options, so that simple amendments around the GEL allocation and lock time can also be considered. I will outline my thoughts for these options in another forthcoming forum post, and there will be ample time to discuss and finalize them. Thanks all!

1 Like