Goldfinch is a DeFi credit protocol focused on real-world lending. GFI holders participate in governance via Snapshot and community discussions.
On Dec. 2nd, anonymous hackers exploited a 5-year old test Goldfinch contract, which resulted in a loss of $330k USDC. We propose to use $250k out of the remaining Bug Bounty budget to cover losses.| Voting : "YES" - Reimburse $250k of the losses (about 75% of total damages) from the hack "NO" - Do nothing
GIP-67 specified that allocation should be distributed as USDC. However, this is more difficult and requires time for the Foundation to work with market makers to convert the GFI to USDC. This proposal is to distribute remaining allocations from that proposal as GFI rather than USDC, which will be much more efficient. Voting: “Yes” - Distribute GIP-67 allocations as GFI rather than as USDC ”No” - No changes to GIP-67 allocation
Approve an ongoing annual Foundation budget of $400K USDC + 200K GFI, which includes an expansion in market making. Also approve an additional $70K USDC + 100K GFI in returnable market-making liquidity. YES - Approve recurring budget and expanded market making. NO - Do not approve.
Reimburse the Foundation for $268,000 USDC of already-incurred operating/marketing/legal expenses not covered by GIP-77, and approve a $200,000 USDC legal reserve to handle ongoing default-related legal actions. YES - Approve $468K USDC for reimbursement + legal reserve. NO - Do not reimburse nor create the legal reserve.
The Community management multisig referenced in the prior GIP-80 actually continues to serve a useful role. This proposal adds it back to the Governance Council and it makes it a 6-of-12 multisig instead of 6-of-11. YES - Community management multisig is added back to Governance Council NO - No change to Governance Council
This proposal recommends updating the composition of the Goldfinch Governance Council by replacing three existing members with new community-aligned representatives. Specifically, it removes two borrower-affiliated seats (Alma and Cauris) and one outdated Community Manager multisig seat, replacing them with three active Goldfinch community contributors. YES - Update the Governance Council with the three new members NO - No change to Governance Council
This proposal seeks community approval to engage two additional market makers to support GFI token liquidity across three centralized exchanges over a 12-month period. The goal is to enhance market liquidity, facilitate healthier trading activity, and support broader access to GFI. YES - Approve budget and add 2 new market makers NO - Do not at 2 market makers
This proposal outlines the continuation of the Goldfinch Community Management team with a renewed mandate and updated structure. It requests funding from the community treasury to support community operations for the next 2 years, building on the foundation established in GIP-66: New Community Management YES – Approve the 2-year community management mandate, including 168,960 USDC for future operations and 10,560 USDC to reimburse the Foundation NO – Do not approve the mandate or funding request
This proposal seeks to approve an additional $500,000 in USDC from the Goldfinch community treasury to cover legal, operational, and marketing expense. YES - Approve $500K budget. NO - Do not approve $500K budget.
This proposal seeks to launch a new institutional-grade private credit offering on the Goldfinch protocol. The pool will allow users to deposit USDC and earn interest derived from dividends payments from private credit investments managed by top institutional fund managers. The Goldfinch site will be updated to focus on this offering. The proposal includes designating Heron Lending, or an affiliate, as the pool counterparty, and establishing a fee structure to generate protocol revenue. The...
This proposal outlines an agreement for market making services, to be provided by Velar Technologies (also known as Storm King Trading, US entity), for the GFI token. The purpose of this proposal is to seek approval for a MM contract renewal. YES - Authorize Velar Technologies to continue as a market maker and renew the Agreement NO - Do not authorize Velar Technologies as a market maker
