People have raised very specific questions about eligibility, conversion mechanics, valuation, the cap table, the treatment of non-converting CFG holders, governance rights, and the future role of CFG.
And yet almost none of those questions have received a clear, direct answer.
So what exactly is the point of asking the community for feedback if you are simply going to push forward regardless of what people say?
If the decision has already been made, then just say that clearly.
Don’t pretend this is a meaningful consultation while refusing to address the most fundamental questions being raised by CFG holders.
At this point, “we appreciate the feedback” sounds less like engagement and more like a way to acknowledge criticism without actually responding to it.
ImdioR is clearly capable of responding when it comes to the proposal to restore DAO governance under CP171.
But when CFG holders ask basic and legitimate questions under CP172 — about valuation, eligibility, conversion mechanics, governance, the cap table, and what happens to holders who do not convert — suddenly there is almost complete silence.
So what exactly are you doing?
You respond where it is convenient, and ignore the proposal that could fundamentally change the rights and value of CFG holders?
Are you actually trying to run a serious business here?
If CP172 is genuinely open for community discussion, then answer the questions being raised there.
If it is not, stop pretending that community feedback has any meaningful role in the process.
CP172 is now live for voting on Snapshot. Voting will remain open for seven days, until September 10 at 12:00 p.m. ET.
By voting on this proposal, CFG holders decide whether to approve moving forward with the proposed restructuring of the Centrifuge Network Foundation, enabling eligible holders to optionally convert CFG into tokenized equity.
Approve the proposed restructuring and optional CFG-to-equity conversion?
I understand that you are frustrated. However, criticism and difficult questions are welcome on this forum, while insults, personal attacks, and inappropriate language are not.
Regarding your question:
Before CP171, I was responsible, on behalf of the DAO, for facilitating the CFG governance process. Following the approval of CP171, active DAO governance was paused.
I am not the author of CP172, so I cannot speak on behalf of the proposal’s author or answer questions about the substance of the proposal. The author is best positioned to address those questions directly. I have responded to questions directed to me about the governance process, both publicly on the forum and privately via DM.
Regarding the restriction placed on your account, this was not because you criticized CP172 or asked difficult questions. It was related to the use of inappropriate language, ignoring CFG Forum rules multiple times. In accordance with this and with the forum rules that apply to all users.
Disagreement and criticism are permitted, but the discussion must remain respectful.
I hope this explains both my role and the moderation decision.
To be honest, this whole situation has become so strange that it is starting to give me an almost conspiracy-theory-like feeling. I reached out to CoinList simply because I wanted to find out whether an ordinary retail holder from Mainland China like me would actually be eligible to participate in the proposed trust. Not long after that, something went wrong with my support portal account, and now I cannot even check the status of the tickets I submitted. Of course, I know this is most likely just a coincidence, but the timing is certainly a little surreal.
Anyway, I suppose I will choose to trust you one more time.
If, in the end, it turns out that I truly am not eligible for the conversion and my only option is to exit at a loss, then I will have no choice but to accept that outcome.
But this experience will definitely change how I choose protocols and investments in the future. I will pay much more attention to where the ultimate economic rights and value of a protocol actually reside, and whether the value represented by the token I hold could eventually migrate into a different ownership structure that I may not be able to participate in.
If Centrifuge equity becomes tradable in the future, and the price is right, perhaps I will come back and gain exposure to Centrifuge equity in tokenized form through deRWA.
Whatever happens to me personally, I still sincerely hope Centrifuge succeeds. After all, this is a protocol I have followed for many years. I have watched it go through many different stages, and I still genuinely want to see it succeed and go far.
So perhaps this is where I say goodbye for now. I may not be able to stay with Centrifuge for the next chapter, but that does not mean I stopped hoping for a good ending for you. Take care, and I truly wish you all the best.
I’ve tried 4 different wallets and am unable to get Snapshot.org to connect to any of them. Therefore with all my 85,752 CFG tokens I vote AGAINST Centrifuge governance proposal CP-172.
That is unusual, as other CFG holders have been able to connect their wallets and vote successfully.
Could you please share which wallets, browser, device, and network you tried, as well as the exact error you received?
A screenshot would also help us understand whether this is a Snapshot, wallet, or connection issue.
Please only share public wallet addresses and never private keys or seed phrases to anyone.
Also, just to clarify: are you voting against CP172 because you disagree with the proposal itself, or because you were unable to connect your wallet?
A technical issue should not prevent your vote from reflecting your actual position on the proposal.
We’re happy to help troubleshoot this and make sure you can submit your vote properly.
I shuttled my CFG tokens between Coinbase, Base wallet, Ledger, and Talisman wallets, each time paying a network fee. I believe my error was than I would first connect Snapshot to the wallet, which had at that time zero CFG, to see if a Snapshot connection to that wallet could be established. Snapshot correctly stating zero CFG in that wallet. Then when the CFG was transferred to that wallet Snapshot continued to state “0 CFG”. Clearing the cache, closing the app, etc could not get Snapshot to change it’s mind, and show the CFG in my wallet. So I’m unable to vote using that link to Snapshot. Time being of the essence here could you contact me to confirm my identity, the amount of CFG held, and the AGAINST vote? - Stephen Donovan jumping272002@yahoo.com, thank you. I’m not worried about being DM contacted by other readers here, as their IQ seems generally high and intentions good
Answering your question, I vote AGAINST CP-172 because I wish to have liquid, publicly traded CFG tokens not private equity. Additionally, even though understanding the nature of decentralized protocols and the onchain governance process, 170+ comments to proposed CP-172, followed by vague and incomplete Foundation responses (carefully lawyer drafted I suppose) with statements that “maybe we’ll shown you more in the future, after you have voted”, is to me offensive. So a vote AGAINST is also a protest vote, though it will make no difference to the outcome. The protocol is only decentralized as long as and when the Foundation wishes it to be that way. For example, our communication here (and thank you for your offer of assistance) is an example of centralization. So eg a Zoom call to answer the numerous unanswered CFG token holder questions was warranted, at least to add some gloss to the governance theatre here.
My CFG are back in Coinbase, after a round robin circle through four wallets in a vain pursuit to vote them. And although “Coinbase” is in the Snapshot menu, Snapshot will not connect to Coinbase when Coinbase is selected, only instead to a Base wallet. As a governance facilitator I think you may have a fiduciary duty or at least a duty of care to count my votes, as expressed, although they were not voted at Snapshot.
Subject: Concern About Mainland China Holders Participating Through the CoinList Trust
I would like to further clarify one concern regarding the conversion eligibility of CFG holders in Mainland China.
Under the current proposal, holders with fewer than 100,000 CFG are expected to participate in the conversion through the CoinList Trust and receive the corresponding economic exposure to Centrifuge equity.
My main concern is this: if the regulatory issue for Mainland China primarily relates to the tokenized equity or the associated digital token, rather than to holding the economic interest in offshore equity itself, would Mainland China holders still be excluded from the conversion entirely because of that?
For me personally, I am not asking for direct shareholder status, governance rights, voting rights, or immediate liquidity. My main concern is simply whether, if I cannot participate through the standard structure because of jurisdictional restrictions, there could still be a way for me to preserve the long-term economic value corresponding to the equity conversion.
So my question is:
Have Centrifuge, CoinList, and the relevant legal advisers already considered this issue for Mainland China holders? If the standard tokenized equity structure ultimately cannot be made available in Mainland China, would you consider another compliant way for existing CFG holders to preserve the corresponding economic exposure to the equity?
I am not proposing any particular legal structure. I simply want to understand whether the team is aware of this issue and whether any solution is being considered.
The proposal states that “the token structure has become a constraint on the partners we can work with.” I’d like to understand this more concretely, because it may be the strongest argument for CP172 and it hasn’t been made explicitly.
Centrifuge currently sits at the tokenization/smart-contract layer of the on-chain securities stack. The layers where value is concentrating — transfer agent, broker-dealer/ATS, custody, DTC settlement — all require registrations that a protocol governed by an anonymous token-holder DAO arguably cannot obtain, and that regulated counterparties are unlikely to accept as a counterparty structure.
So, three specific questions:
Is the equity conversion a precondition for Centrifuge to obtain regulated licences (transfer agent, broker-dealer, ATS, or equivalent non-US registrations), or to partner with entities that hold them?
If so, which registrations are being targeted, and on what timeline?
If not — if there is no licensing or regulated-partnership strategy behind this — what specific partnerships are currently blocked by the token structure that would be unblocked by the equity structure?
This matters for how holders should evaluate the proposal. If CP172 is a step toward moving up the regulated stack, that is a growth strategy and changes the calculus materially. If it is not, then the stated rationale needs a more concrete explanation than it has received so far.
The current CFG total supply is approximately 697.16M tokens. CP172 states that 1 CFG can be subscribed for 1 share. Could the team clarify the intended total and fully diluted number of shares outstanding immediately after the conversion?
Specifically, will the 697.16M CFG supply correspond to the total number of shares available to CFG holders, or will there also be additional shares reserved/issued for existing stakeholders, employees, investors, future financing rounds or other purposes?
For CFG holders, the key question is not only “1 CFG = 1 share”, but what percentage of Centrifuge Inc. those shares represent on a fully diluted basis.
For example, if I hold 112,000 CFG, will this represent 112,000 / 697.16M = approximately 0.0161% of the company, or will the denominator be larger?
I believe this information is essential for CFG holders to evaluate whether the proposed conversion is economically attractive.
I have just short of 140,000 CFG in Coinbase Exchange Account but get a message when I try to vote that I have about 25,000 CFG which is insufficient to vote. Can you help?
Regarding optionality, I am a small investor. Is it likely that small investors, i.e. less than 1 million CFG, having been excluded from voting and therefore from participation as an equity investor, will be awarded what the Foundation may deem a good price and then they are let go?
I strongly support Centrifuge’s vision too. I hold roughly the same amount of CFG as you. Though I am not strongly confident of my math, I think we each own roughly 0.08 % of Centrifuge. We believe in the value of what Centrifuge is doing. It’s worth something. If your liquidity trap is true then we will get nothing for our almost one tenth of a percent ownership. I doubt that the team at Centrifuge would leave us with no support. They never have in the past. But I don’t want to sell or get bought out. Our vision is starting to come true. This should be a time of accruing value.
