In the world of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), governance can sometimes throw curveballs that leave even seasoned participants scratching their heads. That's exactly what happened with Gnosis DAO's recent proposal, GIP-132, which aimed to reward a security researcher with a $10,000 bounty for disclosing a potential vulnerability in the Gnosis Chain. Despite what appeared to be massive support, the proposal was ultimately rejected. Let's dive into what went down, based on the announcement from Gnosis DAO on X.

The proposal, titled "Should the DAO pay out a bounty for a disclosure regarding a consensus discrepancy on Gnosis Chain?", was put to a vote on Snapshot, a popular off-chain voting platform used by many DAOs. Snapshot allows token holders to signal their preferences without incurring gas fees, making it efficient for governance decisions.

The Vulnerability in Question

Back in February 2025, a researcher known as cergyk reported a bug that could have led to a chain split on Gnosis Chain. For those new to blockchain tech, a chain split happens when different nodes (computers running the network) disagree on the state of the blockchain, potentially creating two competing versions of the chain. In this case, the issue involved a block proposer setting the coinbase (the address that receives block rewards) to a smart contract that was created and then self-destructed in the same block.

This trick would cause a discrepancy between two major client softwares: Nethermind and Erigon. Nethermind, which handles about 80% of the stake on Gnosis Chain, wouldn't collect the base fee correctly, while Erigon (with less than 20% stake) would. If exploited, Nethermind's chain would likely become the canonical one due to its majority stake, but Erigon validators could face penalties for not finalizing blocks properly.

Thankfully, the bug was fixed in Nethermind via a pull request in March 2025, aligning its behavior with Erigon's correct implementation and averting any crisis. Gnosis Chain doesn't have an official bug bounty program, but the core team felt this disclosure deserved recognition. Hence, GIP-132 proposed a one-time payout of $10K in stablecoins to cergyk for their responsible reporting.

The proposal also served as a reminder about the importance of client diversity in proof-of-stake networks. Relying too heavily on one client like Nethermind can create risks, so the team encouraged validators to switch to alternatives like Erigon, Reth, or Geth to strengthen the network's resilience.

The Vote and Its Surprising Outcome

The vote ran from September 17 to September 24, 2025, and according to Gnosis DAO's announcement on X (link to the tweet), GIP-132 was rejected. But here's where it gets interesting: a reply to the tweet from user @FmLibertus expressed confusion, noting "99,99% accepted, 0,01% rejected. Motion rejected! How?"

This highlights a key nuance in DAO governance. In Gnosis DAO, votes on Snapshot are weighted by the amount of GNO tokens held (or delegated). But passing a proposal isn't just about getting a majority—there's a specific threshold. According to Gnosis DAO's governance docs (link), a GIP needs at least 75,000 GNO voted "For" to pass, in addition to a majority in favor.

Even if nearly all participants voted yes, if the total "For" voting power didn't reach that 75K GNO mark, the proposal fails due to not meeting quorum. This mechanism ensures that decisions have sufficient community buy-in, measured by token weight, to prevent low-participation votes from making big changes.

In this case, while the percentage of yes votes was overwhelmingly high (suggesting strong agreement among those who voted), the overall turnout or weighted support fell short of the required threshold. It's a classic example of how DAO rules prioritize broad, substantial backing over simple headcounts.

What This Means for Meme Tokens and Broader Crypto

At Meme Insider, we track how governance in blockchain projects, including those involving meme tokens, can impact community trust and network security. Gnosis Chain, while not purely a meme ecosystem, hosts various tokens and dApps where similar vulnerabilities could affect meme coin holders. This event underscores the need for clear governance rules and active participation—low turnout can kill even the most popular ideas.

It also spotlights the value of bug bounties in crypto. Rewarding white-hat hackers encourages proactive security, which is crucial for chains supporting volatile assets like memes. Although GIP-132 didn't pass, it might spark discussions on establishing a formal bounty program for Gnosis.

If you're a blockchain practitioner or meme token enthusiast, keep an eye on Gnosis DAO's future proposals. Engaging in votes ensures your voice (and tokens) count. For more insights on DAO dynamics and the latest in meme token tech, stick with Meme Insider.

Wrapping Up

The rejection of GIP-132 is a reminder that in DAOs, the devil's in the details—or in this case, the thresholds. Despite the setback, the disclosure itself has already bolstered Gnosis Chain's security, proving that community vigilance pays off, bounty or no bounty. What's your take on this? Head over to X and join the conversation!