CP112: Integration of the network into tangem and production of 500 branded centrifuge wallets (2-card sets)

Rhano, esteemed voters,

I deeply regred not having been able to attend the call. I’ve had the “luck” to be in Dubai this week representing Tangem at conferences and events and scheduled the time for CFG governance call. However, the unprecedently extreme weather conditions we were having Monday-Wednesday prevented me from joining in. It so happened that the streets were flooded and a lot of infrastructure and cars (including my taxi) were damaged. So, instead of having a pleasant conversation with you, I ended up wading through the current on a highway.

I’ve tried to alleviate the existing concerns and answer all the questions above.


@Nikita, it is unfortunate when these unexpected events happen but thank you for clarifying in this topic.

I would recommend to create an OpenSquare Snapshot (offchain vote) with the different options to get a temperature check on what the sentiment in our DAO is. Note that this would not be the actual onchain vote but merely a temperature check around (the options in) this proposal.

For example, the options could be:

  1. 500 branded wallets (2-card set) + integration of CFG/AIR + delivery ($16,470)
  2. 300 non-branded wallets (2-card set) + integration of CFG/AIR + delivery ($9,882)
  3. We shouldn’t spend the treasury on this

If you agree with this, and you don’t have any other options to add, we can help you set this vote up.

1 Like

Fine with me. How long will the vote take?

1 Like

I think 7 days is appropriate to allow as many people to vote as possible.

Good. We should keep in mind that the production of fully branded cards takes 2 months. Very close to your summit.

An OpenSquare snapshot has been created in order to get a temperature check around this proposal.

Note, that this vote does not determine the outcome of this proposal - an onchain proposal is still required in order for it to pass. This vote is simply to see if the proposal should be adjusted.

The vote will be open for 7 days (ends 30th April 8.20pm CET).

The three options are:

  1. 500 branded wallets (2-card set) + integration of CFG/AIR + delivery ($16,470)
  2. 300 non-branded wallets (2-card set) + integration of CFG/AIR + delivery ($9,882)
  3. We shouldn’t spend the treasury on this

Option 2 includes customised boxes instead of branded wallets (as shown here).

:ballot_box: Vote in the OpenSquare snapshot here: Proposal to integrate CFG + AIR into Tangem

1 Like

Appreciate all of the dialogue, comments and questions shared regarding this proposal.

However, I’m still not understanding the specific use of these wallets after purchase. @ImdioR mentioned that the Marketing Team definitely has clear plans on their use, but what are those plans?

Being a co-founder of a few tech startups myself, I definitely see the value of exceptional vs common swag. A branded wallet would certainly be classified as exceptional swag. But will it ultimately help the project grow and expand if given away to select event attendees, etc? In my experience, this was not the case.

Until we know about the concrete, detailed plans about how these wallets would be used, I’m going to vote that we shouldn’t spend the treasury on this. I’m not opposed to the spend, but would like to have more information prior to voting for it.

Hey @TheMarcus
I can speak for myself only.

Apart from the 500 wallets (unfortunately this is a minimum order for the branded version), I think that the main purpose of this proposal:

  • Get integration for a new cold wallet for CFG and AIR token
  • Increase and use of Tangem user database ( ~ 100,000 active users)
  • Get the possibility to list CFG\AIR on new DEXs (that the Tangem application is using)

Without these, just 500 wallets, for this price doesn`t make sense. Agree.

What about usage:

  • Centrifuge will have 4 RWA Summit this year: Brussels, Singapore, Austin and NY
  • EthCC conference
  • Community challenges and activity
  • Ambassador education activity (University, Events etc)
  • Polkadot Decoded
  • Etc

I already asked this, but do we have any other alternative with a lower price? If yes, please write who can provide the lower cost for a cold wallet.
During the gov call, @Tradesman suggested an alternative wallet, but as I can see the initial price for the metal cold wallet card is much higher.

1 Like

We should be careful not to put the cart before the horse.

Ultimately, I think the Marketing Team should determine the best strategy to market and promote Centrifuge as a whole. If they conclude that having Centrifuge branded wallets and access to Tangem’s (or another wallet’s) user base would benefit and support the strategy, then it makes sense to look further. But creating wallets at a cost without any clear reason doesn’t make sense to me.

I suggest we put the ball in the hands of the Marketing Team and see what they think.

On that note, I wonder if the Marketing Team has a strategy and if so would/could they share it with us…??

Hi! I am a core contributor on marketing with a focus on events & leading the RWA Summit event series. While I see the value and utility of having branded Tangem wallets to give to our RWA Summit guests, we have to be mindful that we are co-hosting in collaboration with other projects. To that end, they would have to be co-branded and should we have spares left over, we would not be able to repurpose them at future events. It’s also important to keep in mind that our attendees are a 50/50 split of DeFi and TradFi leaders and we need to ensure that our swag and giveaways appeal to both equally. I’m not confident that our TradFi attendees would appreciate them as much as our DeFi ones would.


The OpenSquare snapshot for the temperature check around options in this proposal has ended. The options were:

  1. 500 branded wallets (2-card set) + integration of CFG/AIR + delivery ($16,470)
  2. 300 non-branded wallets (2-card set) + integration of CFG/AIR + delivery ($9,882)
  3. We shouldn’t spend the treasury on this

and the outcome is:

When this proposal moves on to the actual onchain vote, the GCG recommends to allow all token holders to vote on it as opposed to only the council voting in order to make the decision making process as decentralised as possible. So the process would be:

Council Motion -> External motion -> Referendum


CP112 is now live as Referendum 56 for all CFG token holders to vote on.

If passed, this will approve the treasury spending of 25,000 CFG to be transferred to the beneficiary wallet in the next spending period.

:ballot_box: Please vote on the referendum here:

Interesting proposal. My only concern is the actual demand Centrifuge is likely to see in practice and how Centrifuge can recoup the costs, be it in terms of fees charged for wallet issuance or in terms of more token users and more liquidity in RWA.

Referendum 56 for approving the treasury proposal for CP112 did not pass with 64.5% voting Nay and 35.5% voting Aye.

Thank you for voting everyone!