2026 Operating Expenditures Treasury Transfers for Q2 (May–June) + Q3 (July–August)

Proposals
1

Dear Cryptex Community,

Contributors would like to provide an update on our progress since the approval of the 2026 operating expenditures proposal. For a full overview of the original proposal, please reference the post below:

Progress & Accountability

We’ve managed Q1 and April (Q2) budgets within the allocated amounts. You can track actual expenditures via the following public resources:

Budget Optimizations for Q2–Q3

In response to community feedback and in the interest of responsible treasury management, we have implemented the following cost reductions for this period:

  • Contributor Compensation: Reduced by 20% across the board • Marketing Expenses: Reduced by 25% • Audits, Governance Upgrades & Legal Fees: Removed or deferred to Q3+Q4 where they are either no longer projected to be needed or can be utilized later in the year

These optimizations allow us to maintain operational momentum while being more capital-efficient with the DAO’s treasury.

Tying Budget to Mission

As contributors continues to build, we remain focused on advancing Cryptex’s strategic goals, particularly around institutional access to decentralized finance. This includes:

  • Continued development and go-to-market efforts for BAGZ, a compliant index product designed for TradFi

  • Infrastructure integrations with partners including Chainlink, Gemini, Coinbase Custody, and others to meet fiduciary and custody standards

These efforts position Cryptex as a key protocol in the next evolution of decentralized financial products — bridging regulated markets with tokenized index infrastructure.

Q2 (May–June) + Q3 (July–August) Treasury Transfer Summary

To maintain operational continuity and momentum across these initiatives, we propose the following treasury transfer:

  • 725,000 CTX (Total Transfer) – Operational Expenditures covering May, June, July, and August 2026

Transfer Destination: All funds will be transferred to the contributors operating multisig for structured distribution: 0xa70b638b70154edfcbb8dbbbd04900f328f32c35

Next Steps

We invite you to review, discuss, and vote on this proposal to approve the Q2 (May–June) + Q3 (July–August) Treasury Transfers.

Your participation directly supports the DAO’s ability to deliver on its mission — from protocol improvements to institutional infrastructure. Let’s keep building. Cryptex is just getting started.

-– The Cryptex Contributor Team

2

Sharing additional details regarding the landscape of CTX:

DAO Position
• 1,200,000 CTX currently in treasury
• 525,000 CTX on loan (DAO-owned, receivable in June)
• 330,000 CTX with the subDAO
• 100,000 CTX with the ACC

DAO Total: ~2,155,000 CTX

Budget Proposal (May through August)
• Budget request: 725,000 CTX

Post-Budget
Remaining: ~1,430,000 CTX

3

gm everyone,

First, I want to say I am not opposed to funding operations and I appreciate the work that went into preparing the budget as well as the proposed cost reductions. I understand the importance of getting BAGZ live and continuing protocol development.

That said, this budget makes the DAO’s runway highly dependent on BAGZ becoming live and eventually producing meaningful revenue. I hope that happens and I understand why contributors are focused on getting it across the finish line. But until that revenue exists and is visible to the DAO, I think we need to be very clear about the treasury assumptions behind this request.

The proposal requests 725,000 CTX for May through August, which is a 4-month period. That is 7.25% of the total CTX supply. I think that percentage is important for everyone to understand, because this is a meaningful amount of CTX to convert into operating funds over a short period of time.

My main asks are:

1. Monthly budget execution reporting

The DAO should receive a monthly budget execution report showing:

  • CTX converted during the month
  • average realized conversion rate
  • execution route / venue where possible
  • remaining CTX and any USD/stable operating funds

To be clear, this reporting request is not about micromanaging contributors or individual payments. It is about aggregate transparency so tokenholders can understand how the approved budget is being executed.

2. Unused CTX should return to the DAO treasury

I would like it stated directly in the proposal or confirmed in this thread: any unused CTX from the May-August budget should return to the DAO treasury.

3. Market-impact-conscious execution

The proposal should include market-impact-conscious execution language around CTX conversions.

In my view, it would be preferable to actively explore OTC buyers, strategic investors, or other direct counterparties where possible, instead of relying mainly on market-maker / CEX execution. This has been raised many times in the past and I would like the contributors to confirm whether OTC or direct investor routes are being actively explored for this budget.

4. Budget math at current CTX prices

The budget math should be clarified at current CTX prices.

Based on the sheet, revised monthly burn appears to be around $122k/month, or roughly $489k for the 4-month May-August period. 725k CTX only covers that amount if CTX is converted around ~$0.67.

If the current market price is lower, then either additional existing CTX from the contributor multisig is expected to be used, or the requested CTX may not fully cover the stated operating need. I think this should be made explicit.

5. Liquid treasury vs encumbered / separate assets

The DAO position should distinguish between liquid treasury and encumbered / separate assets.

The 525k CTX loan / market-making balance, the subDAO funds, and ACC funds are DAO assets, but they are not all the same as immediately available liquid operating treasury. For evaluating runway, I think these buckets should be shown separately.

6. Post-August funding plan

I would also like more clarity on the post-August funding plan if BAGZ revenue is not yet live or not yet meaningful by then.

If the DAO is approving another large CTX-denominated operating budget now, tokenholders should understand what happens when this budget runs out. Will the core team continue working? Will another CTX budget be requested? Will operations be reduced further? What is the plan under different revenue scenarios?

This is about making sure tokenholders can understand the real runway, the market impact of budget execution, what remains after this budget period, and how dependent the DAO is on BAGZ revenue materializing in time.

In the past, the DAO may have accepted less detailed reporting around CTX conversions, but the current situation is different. The requested budget is large relative to liquid treasury and supply, CTX price is low and the DAO needs to understand how long the treasury can realistically continue funding operations if BAGZ revenue is delayed or not yet meaningful.

I would be more comfortable supporting the budget if these points are clarified directly in the proposal or committed to in this thread.

2 Likes
4

Hi @dnkta.eth thanks for the reply. To answer each of the points:

  1. I can reply on the forum post with the CTX/stablecoin activity and that would also provide clarity for point 2.
  2. Yes, any unused CTX from the May-August budget will be returned to the DAO treasury. As mentioned in point 1 everyone will have visibility to the CTX/stablecoin activity to understand the drawdown in the CTX from the May-August budget.
  3. Yes, OTCs, strategics, directs are preference and if those don’t work out then its MM.
  4. ~$220k in the multisig + bank account held specifically for use for BAGZ launch/marketing. $519,317 for the 4 month May-August period minus $222,000 leaves $297,317 with a published proposal date/conversion of $0.41.
  5. Showed the full picture of DAO position to give holistic view of current state. You shared a good further explanation of each item.
  6. Upon launch and continued execution of BAGZ we can assess revenue, expenses and come up with a plan for September-December. There are a multitude of ways this can go so as we get closer to July/August we can reevaluate, discuss and come up with a plan.
2 Likes
5

Thanks Matz, appreciate your input.

This clarifies a lot, especially the unused CTX return and the budget math.

A few follow up points just to make sure I understand correctly:

1. Monthly CTX / stablecoin activity reporting

For the CTX / stablecoin activity reporting, would this be provided monthly during the May-August budget period?

That would be the most useful format so the DAO can track:

  • CTX converted during the month
  • average realized conversion rate
  • route / venue where possible
  • remaining CTX from the approved budget
  • remaining USD / stable operating funds, if any

2. OTC / strategic / direct counterparties

I appreciate that OTCs, strategics, and direct counterparties are the preference.

Given the treasury situation and CTX price, I think these routes should be actively prioritized. If those routes do not work out and MM execution is used instead, I think the DAO should receive an update explaining that outcome and why direct routes were not available.

At the latest, I think this should be addressed before or alongside any next budget request.

3. Existing funds / BAGZ launch and marketing allocation

On the ~$222k already held for BAGZ launch / marketing, can you clarify the composition of that amount?

Looking on-chain, I currently only see around 122,742 CTX in the contributor multisig, worth roughly $46k at current prices, and around 21,042 CTX of that appears to already be allocated for staking rewards.

Is the rest of the ~$222k held in the bank account? Just want to understand what portion is CTX vs USD / bank funds.

4. Post-August plan

The remaining concern for me is still the post-August plan.

I understand there are many variables, especially around BAGZ, but I do not think the DAO can continue drawing from treasury until there is nothing left without a clearer plan.

If BAGZ revenue is delayed or not meaningful by August, tokenholders should understand what happens next:

  • Will another CTX-denominated budget be requested?
  • Will operations be reduced further?
  • Are alternative funding sources being pursued?
  • What is the downside-case plan if revenue takes longer than expected?

I think some version of this plan should be presented to the DAO soon, not only when the next budget is already needed.

Thanks again, this response helps.

1 Like
6

Hi everyone!

Thanks for setting up the proposal which we’ll endorse given the critical months ahead until BAGZ is launched. All efforts should definitely be targeted to that point in time given the breakthrough that it could possible mean for the DAO in terms of revenue and positioning.

Nonetheless, @dnkta.eth is outlining some relevant points regarding transparency that can be adressed such as stablecoin conversions, further clarifications on where funds live, what buckets actually are and how can that information be more accesible and available. That is and should always be welcomed, as a recent example, we built this dashboard in Scroll exactly to that end so happy to collaborate if it helps.

Finally, and agreeing with @matz on this one, we think the inflection point will come at BAGZ launch and after some early execution signs the conversation of how the roadmap looks like can be resumed with a clearer view and less legal dependencies.

Thanks!

3 Likes
7

Definitely, let’s talk to see how we can implement a similar dashboard. So far, we hold the assets in the team multisig and were thinking about adding it to Aragon. Echoing what @matz say, no issue sharing CTX/stablecoin activity, and we can add it into the dashboard.

3 Likes
8

This proposal has my endorsement

1 Like
9

Hello everyone,

Thanks to the contributor team for putting this proposal together and for the proactive cost reductions. Seeing a 20% cut in compensation and a 25% cut in marketing shows a high level of commitment to the DAO’s long-term survival.

From my perspective, I view the treasury as our ‘fuel tank.’ While this request uses a significant portion of our liquid reserves, it is a necessary allocation to reach our next major infrastructure milestone: BAGZ. That’s why, as @matz suggested, reporting on CTX/stablecoin activity, returning any unused funds to the treasury and prioritizing strategic buyers to minimize market impact will be crucial.

Adding on what @dnkta.eth implied, to ensure we aren’t caught off-guard in August, I suggest we add a mid-point strategy check-in around the end of June. Rather than waiting until this budget runs out to discuss what happens next if BAGZ revenue is delayed, we could have a brief update on the whole landscape in late June. This would allow the DAO to see the progress of the BAGZ rollout and adjust our “downside-case” plan with plenty of lead time.

I endorse this transfer and look forward to the launch of BAGZ.

Allez!

2 Likes
10

I appreciate the proactive cost reductions as well, though I agree with the concerns raised about the significance of allocating this large a portion of remaining CTX in treasury. There was a lot of impassioned discussion a few weeks back on Discord about the idea of locking a reserve. That conversation didn’t really seem to come to resolution. I’m supportive of moving forward with this vote and with the budget push to get to market. Though I agree with @dnkta.eth and @gordinh0x that we should not wait until the current cycle is over to have hard discussions about what happens next cycle. We can’t continue to sustain drawing down the dwindling treasury at this rate. Thanks!

2 Likes
11

I agree with this.

I think we should definitely keep exploring the strategic reserve idea and not let that discussion disappear after this vote.

The DAO has funded operations for several years without meaningful recurring protocol revenue. At this stage, future budgets should be tied to a clearer revenue path, stricter treasury reporting, and a minimum strategic reserve. The DAO cannot continue treating CTX treasury drawdowns as the default funding mechanism indefinitely.

Even if this May-August budget moves forward because the next few months are important, I think the next phase has to be about moving from treasury funded development to revenue supported operations.

That does not mean stopping work or blocking progress. It means setting clear treasury boundaries before the next budget cycle, so the DAO is not forced into the same discussion again with even less runway.

2 Likes
12

I see this as a strong opportunity for Cryptex to position itself as a more innovative protocol by bringing new products to market and showing real progress toward institutional-facing infrastructure.

My vote would be in support of this proposal because I believe investing in development at this stage is necessary if the DAO wants to reach the next phase of growth. At the same time, I am voting with a fair amount of uncertainty, mainly because so much of the DAO’s near-term sustainability appears to depend on BAGZ launching successfully and gaining traction within a relatively short timeframe.

What I do agree with is the broader strategic direction. If executed well, BAGZ could represent an important step forward for Cryptex in terms of both innovation and long-term positioning.

That said, one area where I would appreciate more clarity is around the potential investor profile for BAGZ. Since this product is being positioned as a key milestone for future revenue generation, it would be helpful for the DAO to better understand:

  • What type of investors are being targeted (institutional, strategic crypto-native funds, family offices, etc.)

  • Whether there are already active conversations or early signals of interest

  • What the expected adoption path looks like after launch

Greater visibility into the target market would help tokenholders better assess the probability of BAGZ achieving the traction needed to justify this level of treasury allocation.

Overall, I support the proposal and the effort to push Cryptex forward, while also encouraging continued transparency around execution, adoption expectations, and post-launch strategy.

3 Likes
13

Yes, come late June we can check-in with the progress that was made and what is ahead.

1 Like
14

Yes I do believe having a total view of DAO holdings 2026 Operating Expenditures Treasury Transfers for Q2 (May–June) + Q3 (July–August) - #2 by matz along with detailed information about each line item 2026 Operating Expenditures Treasury Transfers for Q2 (May–June) + Q3 (July–August) - #3 by dnkta.eth can help with allocating to what will help us all win. + @DesertDwelr

1 Like
15

This is the first go for an offchain, tradfi audience. We are actively putting all of our effort into this.

1 Like
16
  1. Have to think about the delivery of this information and the implications of front running. If you have seen other DAOs in these situations that are sharing this level of detail please share so we can take a look.
  2. We have been more than communicative when OTCs, strategics, and direct counterparties have emerged and will continue to be this way.
  3. Balance is in bank account or paid to service providers
  4. Checking in monthly, as time progresses we’ll have more clarity on what is ahead and can see which path is most viable.
1 Like
17

Hey gm @matz

We have been following the discussion from the Discord chats and now here, so thank you for all the clarifications and modifications, especially around budget optimizations.

We also support your concerns regarding the implications of information sharing. We need to be careful on how we share information on BAGZ, especially at this time.

However, to your point here

We believe you are missing the point @dnkta.eth and a couple other delegates are trying to make, or at least we believe they are trying to make, and that is trust.

No one is asking the core team to go into as much detail as possible, but give us a high-level. An “okay, this is what we can share at this time.” Nothing granular, just something that keeps that trust and belief going.

We have had a couple calls already this year, but can we create a better structure for it (at least once a month leading up to the launch), where someone from the team comes, gives us an update, shares bottlenecks (if possible), and relates with the community and delegates?

Yes, these are critical times as launch draws closer, but the community and token holders deserve to be kept in the loop even more during these times.

Overall, great work from the team. We have enjoyed good transparency already, and we don’t undermine all the effort you all are putting.

2 Likes
18

I believe trust is a byproduct of communication, so we will communicate consistently and as always answer any questions that come up. Getting back into the weekly updates and monthly calls, that can be a good place to share all details that we can.

2 Likes
19

Tom, I appreciate the detailed proposal. Furthermore, I appreciate the voluntary expense reductions at this critical time.

I agree with others that a late June strategic check-in, and further communications in general, are also key at this time.

One thing to consider: with the switch to targeting an offchain, tradfi audience, does our current marketing strategy still make sense?

Also, should we expect that the 525,000 CTX on loan will be fully re-invested into market making?

This proposal has my support.

1 Like
20

I agree with this.

At the same time, I think the late June check-in should be more than a general update.

The DAO should use the next few months to put a broader treasury and incentive framework in place before the next budget cycle.

A few things I think should be part of that discussion:

1. A strategic reserve framework.
The DAO should protect a minimum CTX DAO reserve. One possible structure could be a 500k CTX liquid reserve, while also treating the 525k CTX market-maker loan as DAO-owned restricted liquidity capital rather than ordinary spendable runway.

2. Stronger governance incentives.
If we want people to lock, delegate, follow proposals, and vote, incentives should be materially higher and tied to actual participation. Governance only works if the people securing it are meaningfully incentivized.

3. A clearer path from treasury funded development to revenue supported operations.
I support this budget because I see it as a bridge to product revenue. After this period, revenue should start carrying more of the operating burden. The DAO will still have some CTX left in the treasury, but not enough to keep funding operations through the end of the year at the same rate without putting the remaining treasury under too much pressure. We should not plan around spending every last CTX the DAO has.

I support giving the team runway to execute through August, and I think the next step should be making sure the DAO enters the following cycle with a clearer framework for reserves, incentives, and revenue. The goal should be better alignment between CTX holders, delegates, contributors, and the DAO as a whole.

1 Like