PGP-39 | One-Time Allocation of Accrued Protocol Fees: Bootstrap Team Retroactive Service Fee

[Tenebrae]

Proposal Type

PGP (Treasury / Fee Allocation)

Summary

This proposal requests a one-time transfer of a fixed USD amount ($500,000) from accrued protocol fees currently held in the fee smart contract to the Mimo Team to pay a one-time service providing fee to the Mimo Team for past services rendered to bootstrap and sustain the Parallel protocol. This proposal is explicitly one-time and non-precedent, and does not change future fee allocation rules.

---

Context & Rationale

Why this is being proposed now

From inception through launch and initial growth, the Mimo Team funded and executed substantial work for Parallel, including (non-exhaustive):

• protocol development and maintenance,

• security audits and related spend,

• marketing and growth support,

• operational setup and compliance work (including licensing),

• early ecosystem and partner efforts.

During this period, the Mimo Team did not request compensation from the DAO for these contributions. As the protocol matured and started accruing meaningful fee revenue, the DAO began to hold those fees on-chain.

This is not a request to change the protocol’s forward-looking economics; it is a retroactive compensation funded from fees that have already been generated.

---

What This Proposal Does (Scope)

In scope

• Transfer $500,000 USD equivalent from accrued protocol fees held in the fee smart contract to the Mimo Team.

• Mimo Team uses proceeds for a $500,000 one-time service providing fee to the Mimo Team for past services rendered.

Out of scope

• Any change to future fee allocation, protocol fee rates, reserves, emissions, or incentive schedules.

• Any ongoing entitlement to protocol fees by any party.

• Any changes to the DAO’s long-term treasury policy (a separate proposal can address that).

---

Implementation

Fixed amount: $500,000 USDC to 0xA804F6b4b6d0d9644811b45fe7eA389928786430

[NL.1]

Retroactive service fees feels like sabotage. Newly starting and ongoing service fees feel more welcome imho

[781]

What?!!?

I am formally opposing this $500,000 drawdown. Parallel is currently not running at full capacity, and the TVL is struggling to gain the momentum we all expected. Requesting half a million dollars in liquid fees now—while the protocol’s growth is stalling—is a major red flag regarding Mimo’s priorities.

​Furthermore, looking at the performance charts, the justification for this ‘retroactive fee’ is paper-thin. We are here to build a powerhouse, not to serve as an exit liquidity pool for a team.

​I will not support any treasury outflows until the team starts showing respect to its largest backers. Mimo should spend less time drafting PGP payout requests and more time answering the critical strategic questions I’ve raised in the general chat, which remain ignored.

​My vote is a firm NO. Let’s get back to work on the TVL before talking about bonuses."

[arjpet]

I miss the vote option so we can vote “no” to this proposal.

[MTTM]

Hey everyone, MTTM here.

This is going to be a long one so buckle up. If you are an investor from the ICO period or a recent token holder , read till the end of my post, it will be worth it , I promise.

For all these years, I never posted here and I never felt the need to vote when it came to MIMO / Parallel. I always trusted in the team to not only do their best but perhaps, more critically , do right by the users.

In many ways, I like to believe that many people in the team did put in their best for the past 5 , or in my case, 9 years. Yes, you read that right, I have had faith in the team and stuck by your side for 9 years.

Through the failure of the TenX card, ousting of Julian Hosp, scandal of Toby Hoenisch, token swap to Mimo, failure of KUMA and the KIBTs, the supposed launch of “AYA wallet” and hyperliquid competitor that never happened, the absurd switch to “AYA Community” , the launch of PRL and using Cooper as a service provider, Jean , Yaya and Thomas leaving Mimo and now, the final act.

THE GREAT RAID.

I am utterly disappointed in the team not because of the price of PRL now.
I am frustrated and pissed because I know we could have achieved great things.

We were early to making Crypto spendable but we fucked it up.

We were early to EUR stable but we fucked it up.

We were early to RWA but we fucked it up.

We were early to AI but we fucked it up.

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice? Shame on me.

Fool us now? Shame of all of us.

I think it’s pretty clear.If the founding team did not decide to be greedy and starve the company and protocols from the massive warchest we raised back in 2017, we would not be in this situation 9 years later.

Now, I am going to be objective and break down this PGP point by point.
I will ask questions and raise my doubts and I expect answers to be given.

At the end, I will lay out my plan and suggestion and the team ( or rather what’s left of it ) , can decide how you choose to respond.

Firstly, let’s get straight to the point and state the obvious. In all the years of governance , this has got to be the worst written and structured proposal of all time. And the irony that it happens to be the one asking for the most funds. I think we can all agree this likely means whoever decided to put this together, did this in a hurry, and didn’t really think it through. A proposal from the team itself that doesn’t even properly follow the set framework.

“If it tastes like shit, smells like shit, it’s probably shit.”

You guys ran out of money right? That’s just the fact. You guys don’t have to hide it and neither should you.

“From inception through launch and initial growth, the Mimo Team funded and executed substantial work for Parallel,” and “During this period, the Mimo Team did not request compensation from the DAO for these contributions.”

When I read this line, I almost fell off my seat. It truly makes me wonder who decided this was a good idea. Please allow me to enlighten the team that seemed to have forgot where they left their morals and frankly brains at.

THAT IS WHAT THE TOKENS ARE FOR. ( the hundred million PRL you decided to stake now to outvote all of us ) and much more tokens the team still has, including the founder tokens you have not even migrated yet.

If I wanted to be generous, I could just leave it at this point and that would be the end of the discussion.

But after 9 years of graciousness and patience, I think I deserve to say my piece.

The team ask for “500K” and decides to frame the fund transfer as “retroactive compensation”. In the past, even for audits that cost tens of thousands of dollars, we would still be given fairly precise information on the service or provider and maybe even receipts or even external addresses , that we could all verify.

Also, in case we live in alternate timelines, the DAO already PAID FOR THE AUDITS. 240K and counting.

So let me extend an olive branch to the team.

Produce the receipts for every single transaction and then perhaps we could even consider. If not, abandon the idea.

It’s not morally ethical and certainly not legally right.

Also, let me point out the convenient fact the “500K” happens to be almost the amount that the DAO has in liquid cash. Almost seems too coincidental that the amount just happens to line up?

And let’s say the DAO transferred the amount, then what happens to Cooper Lab’s monthly payment? There will essentially be nothing left right? So essentially, you are leaving us for dead. And you know that.

That’s why you are trying to get this passed quickly but we will not let you.

Let’s just say I gave the team the benefit of the doubt and for one second, said: “ Sure, maybe for whatever internal reason, the team needs 500K” . But in one single lump sum? Not paid in batches and the team summarised the entire proposal in one single base line:

“ Fixed amount: $500,000 USDC to 0xA804F6b4b6d0d9644811b45fe7eA389928786430 “

Again, what a way to end a 9 year run. It’s like the team decided one day to just pack it up, take everything and go, and never bothered to tell us.

I VOTE NO.

Unfortunately, this time I am no longer going to turn a blind eye to this team’s actions.

This is blatant fraud and mismanagement of funds.

Claude, you are going to answer all of us.

Don’t hide behind the team any more, You already removed all of them. Don’t use the excuse of being busy, You have nothing you are actually working on.

Where is the code or MVP of AYA?

Why are the ones who are left in the team so conveniently close to you? Perhaps you have a soft spot for some of them from your Telcoin time?

What about company expenses? What was used and for what reason?

Claude, I do not want to insinuate anything but enough is enough.

Either show your cards or I call your bluff.

I tried to be respectful to you in our private messages and everyone here can attest for the fact that throughout all these years, I have remained objective.

But this is nothing personal against you. You are the CEO, so do your job and give us answers.

If this is not your decision , and the puppet masters are pulling the strings from behind, then tell us now and get out of the way.

READY? HERE WE GO.

To those who are going to decide to vote yes for this proposal and to the DAO signees who sign off on the transfer, you could be potentially be legally charged as accomplice to fraud , misappropriation and potential breach of trust in many jurisdictions across the world.

Voters and signers have an implicit duty of care towards users and the protocol at large, and I am pretty confident I can get most courts around the world to back me on this.

Now I am aware that with the “honey pot” that the team has access to, you may decide to mount a legal threat and action against voter/ signees who disagree to your scheme, and real human identities are at stake.

To those who are hesitant, do not worry, step aside and sit this one out. The law will have your back.

The legal risk of being sued for refusing to execute this fraudulent proposal cannot possible compare to the very real possibility of voters and signees approving and executing a fraudulent transfer of funds.

To the MIMO team members,

I believe most of you do not ethically agree with this. I know you know what the right thing to do, and you know where the money went and what it is going to.

If you do not want to be implicated in the next step, I strongly encourage you to step away or if you feel like helping, reach out to me.

HERE IS MY COUNTER - PROPOSAL. Should the team decide to accept, we will draft a formal proposal and pass the vote.

————————————————————————————————

OPTION 1:

The DAO will approve the transfer of exactly $1 USDC, in exchange for the entire token position of the MIMO Team, founders , executive team and all additional tokens directly or indirectly controlled by MIMO / TENX.

After that, Parallel Protocol and the DAO will be independent of MIMO the company and those who continue to believe in the Cooper Team + DAO can join and contribute.

After receiving all the tokens controlled by MIMO, which we estimate at around 40-50% of the entire supply, I proposed to burn them / re deploy for new issuance / incentives . So that the protocol can truly run on its own and rework its tokenomics.

OPTION 2 :

The DAO will fork the protocol and exclude all tokens directly or indirectly controlled by MIMO. ( just like forking ETH - sometimes life can be quite poetic )

——————————————————————————————————

Either way, the team will no longer assume ownership or control over what is supposed to be a decentalised protocol.

At the same time, I am seeking the return of hundreds of millions of BTC/ETH that have been stashed away by the founders. However great Toby was at the DAO hack, they still caught him. Likewise, “you can ride, but you can’t hide.”

I WANT TO STATE VERY CLEARLY THAT THIS IS JUST MY PERSONAL SUGGESTION.

Anyone and everyone is free to suggest a different and perhaps even better plan.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IF THE TEAM DOES NOT COMPLY?

The team has 24 hours to drop the proposal and respond. Yes, I want answers from the team, Claude, Toby and Paul and the rest like Frederic, Yacine, Bad etc.

After that, I will take it that there is no deal and we will mount a comprehensive course of action and take steps to not only find and prosecute every individual who is complicit in mismanagement of funds and fraud, but we also fully intend to claw back every cent of the main treasury , which keys are clearly held in control by the founders. One somewhere in Japan with his wife and kids, and the other in his home country of Thailand.

The great thing about crypto is that everything can be seen. So good luck trying to hide and split 3800 BTC. Every single transaction and address through the years have been logged and continue to be traced. We also know how the foundation operates and who is linked to it.

And we are fairly confident we know the identities behind most PRL addresses. So if you have done things you are not proud of, do not vote and even better, burn your tokens. Because we are coming.

“Code is Law” is not something that can be used when it comes to the ICO funds raised from 2017. We have the bank accounts, we have the personal details, we have the wallets and we will prosecute.

Hacking the DAO in 2016 is one thing, stealing our money is quite another.

I have prepared a full document and case file and will be enlisting the services of Laura Shin ( who originally wrote the piece of Toby ), ZachXBT and a few others like him and also popular creators like Coffeezilla. Since the founders and the management team want to go down in history, then I will gladly help them. Since Claude loves to speak at conferences and wants to be like CZ, we will ensure he gets his one minute of fame and experience what jail feels like too. Toby can do his yoga stretches behind bars while his partner flies drones and Paul can keep dreaming of driving his Porsche with his partner. Some people forgot but Toby got his brother Philipp Hoenisch, to run COMIT, and now Lendasat, which he still runs while having breakfast with his wife ( these projects were funded by our funds ) Oh, and yes, not forgetting Julian Hosp, who collected his bag, got married with Bettina, had 3 kids, lived in a giant mansion in Singapore and started Defichain , which turned out to be another complete sham. What better way to drum up attention than to bring back the guy with the most ego?

It’s been years, let’s reunite the entire team shall we?

Believe me, I never make things personal, and I always try to be fair. But sometimes, you got to make a deal with the devil.

Additionally, I have also given heads up to the relevant state authorities about our case.

You left me no choice team. This proposal was the final straw the broke the camel’s back.

We will protect the tiny amount of funds in our precious treasury and we will get back our hundreds of millions in fraudulently, misappropriated funds.

Stop immediately and return all funds. And perhaps a compromise can be reached, if not, get yourself ready.

After such a long read, I hope I have the support of those who still believe in doing the right thing.

I want to inject a little bit of optimism in this post so it’s now all just about bad people doing bad things.

Everyone, if we survive this and stand independent on our own after all this, you can be sure that those of us remaining will have even more determination to deliver.

I have some ideas of where we can take this protocol and even with what we have in the treasury, we will make it. But, let’s save that for the day we survive.

On a very personal note, even after the DAO survives, everyone can be assured that I have no actual intention of “steering the ship”.

That is for Jean / Cooper Labs / or whoever we decide to vote for. And you can be sure, I will hold everyone to the same high moral and work standards.

I always watched from the side and that is my happy place. I will help you guys win this, and then step aside.

For many years, most of you knew me as MTTM, but do any of you know what it actually stood for?

MIMO TO THE MOON.

Yeah, the irony.

I think “Moving Towards The Mark” now seems to make more sense.

ONE BIT / TENX / MIMO / KUMA / AYA / everything else, I think it’s time to stop the lies and come out of hiding.

I made my move.

Your turn.

MTTM.

[781]

MTTM

This is the most powerful, electrifying, and liberating post I have ever read on this forum! Thank you! A massive, heartfelt thank you for the raw courage it took to drag the truth into the light. Seeing these facts laid bare is a total deliverance for all of us who have been watching this protocol struggle under the weight of its own shadows. You’ve just broken the chains.

​It is staggering to realize how much loyalty we gave while, as you perfectly stated, we had the gold, the tech, and the lead—only to see it all squandered. I validate every single one of your points with zero reservation: the shameful attempt to drain fees, the team’s double-dipping, and the absolute mandate to sever ties with this toxic baggage.

​I am standing with you 200%. The era of turning a blind eye is over.

​Mimo Team:

Staking 100M sPRL1 just to vote YES on your own $500k proposal is absolutely disgusting.

the clock has stopped. You no longer have a choice. Either you provide total, unfiltered transparency right now, or you step aside. The community is taking control.

[MTTM]

Thank you 781.

I can’t reach you here through message,

If you can , reach me on telegram .

We need to talk.

Appreciate it.

[Vic]

Thank you very much MTTM for your message and for the determination behind it. I completely agree with every point you raised. I’m also very disappointed with the team, which I personally supported for six years.

I urge the MIMO team to step down with dignity and finally respond to us. You had everything you needed to build a great project.
Please don’t ruin the ending.

[MTTM]

To the team,

You could have chosen to send a quick first response. You could have tried to reach a compromise with us but instead, you chose to stay silent.

I guess you are weighed down by the immense guilt, fear and uncertainty over what is going to happen.

If there is no proper, comprehensive response from CEO + C Suites + Founders,

I will officially file with Dubai, Japan, Thailand, Singapore and Australia’s national authorities with the goal for Interpol + Europol to coordinate investigation , tracing and identification.

I will also be sending out the case file to Laura Shin and industry crypto journalist / ZachXBT / Chainanlysis / Coffeezilla and other investigative personalities + blockchain forensics / tracing firms by Monday, 16 March , 8am New York Time.

I have every single person’s personal details, corporate details, on-chain addresses and legally obtained bank accounts.

This may cost me deeply, but I have nothing more to lose.

Please understand, I have waited long enough.

9 years. 9 fucking years.

The foundation has control over well over 3000 + BTC.

To the Team at MIMO that tried to take our precious 500K USD, thats just 7 BTC at today’s price.

7 out of 3000+.

0.001 % …

We are left with nothing but one fucking drop of water, and yet you still choose to drink from what is not yours.

The sheer cruelty, fucking audacity and pure greed is what makes me sick. It is what keeps me up at night.

Yet, instead of doing right by us, you crossed the line and tried to take from us.

Looking back, I admit I was foolish and naive. As a grown adult, I learnt my mistake and paid dearly for it with a decade of wasted hope and dark desperation.

I know it’s highly likely that I will not benefit from this. Like I said, this course of action will cost me.

But I WANT JUSTICE.

Toby, Paul , Claude and the rest of the ones involved…

You all should have known better.

You didn’t but now you will.

I never asked for us to be number one, never expected us to be perfect.

I just wanted us to move forward together as a team, step by step, one foot in front of the other.

I just wanted answers, transparency and honesty.

I liked the ride we were on and the story we were all a part of.

I just wished the ending could have been different.

MTTM

[mimo-team]

Addressing community concerns

We are writing this message as Mimo, the entity behind the development of TenX, the Parallel Protocol, KUMA, and the broader ecosystem many of you have been part of for years. This message is addressed to the community at large, not to any single individual. We want to set the record straight, provide context, and lay out clearly where things stand.

For context, the company conducted a token sale in 2017. Under the terms of that sale, purchasers received PAY tokens, which were expressly described as not being securities. We then built and launched the TenX app and delivered the product we said we would build. The business unfortunately was not commercially successful, and the collapse of Wirecard, the key provider for card services, made continuation of those services impossible.

As stated by the management of the company at the time, part of the token sale proceeds also funded the COMIT Foundation, a nonprofit established to pursue Bitcoin-related infrastructure research. The company has neither control nor visibility over these funds.

After that period, the company continued building. We developed the Parallel Protocol to provide euro-denominated stablecoin infrastructure to users. In the interest of fairness, the governance token ($MIMO at that time, before PRL) was distributed via a fair launch mechanism through TVL and liquidity mining rather than through a pre-allocation to insiders. The company participated in this process as a user of the protocol, alongside every other participant, under the same rules. As a gesture of goodwill and to unify the community, the company used a portion of the tokens it had legitimately earned through this process to conduct a free airdrop to PAY token holders. Nobody was required to pay anything for this.

We did not stop there. We continued building software and protocols designed to expand the utility of Parallel, including KUMA, which allowed users to tokenize real-world assets and use them as collateral to mint stablecoins through Parallel. We committed company resources to operate as a related token issuer and exchange in support of the ecosystem. The software worked, it was open source, and while adoption was real, commercial success remained limited.

We also committed company capital to purchase governance tokens in multiple other protocols as part of a broader strategy to grow the ecosystem around Parallel and improve the liquidity and utility of its governance token. This was done to support integrations, alignment, and ecosystem development around Parallel, not as a compensated mandate but as an additional contribution we fully funded ourselves. At no point were we compensated by the protocol for those efforts.

We also identified and onboarded a capable community member to take over protocol operations, in the name of Jean Brasse. He emerged with the willingness to take over stewardship of the protocol and we supported that transition. A structure was put in place under which the DAO would fund his new company (Cooper labs) for his work, while our company also continued contributing by paying part of his compensation and by continuing to fund our developers working on the protocol. During this entire period, the company was contributing resources without ever receiving compensation from the protocol.

That history is why we submitted a request for funds from the protocol: not as a raid, not as an attempt to abandon the community, but as partial compensation for years of work, operating costs, and ecosystem support that the company funded. Even that request was intentionally limited to less than half of the DAO’s available funds (which we consider to be including the reserve of Parallel v2), leaving more than half available for future protocol development by Cooper Labs. We believe this is a reasonable and measured request given the magnitude of what was contributed.

At this point, however, the reaction has made the situation clear. We are now at a crossroads.

We respect the governance process. This is a proposal, and the community will decide its outcome, we will not vote. However, we want to be transparent about the implications of that decision, because both paths lead somewhere and the community deserves to understand where.

If the community votes against the proposal: We will interpret this as a signal that the community and the company are no longer aligned. In that case, we think it would be fair to fully and permanently dissociate ourselves, our resources, and any future software or products we develop from the Parallel Protocol and its community. We will not touch the DAO’s funds and simply part ways. There will be no future collaboration, no shared economic incentives, and no continued involvement from our side.

If the community votes in favor: We intend to continue treating the Parallel Protocol, even though properly decentralized, as a key product of the ecosystem we’re trying to build. We will integrate it into future projects where it makes sense and remain an active participant in the ecosystem’s growth.

We have spent years building, funding, maintaining, and supporting products and infrastructure in this ecosystem. We stayed engaged where many others would have walked away. We made this proposal in the belief that it was a reasonable and honest attempt to recognise that contribution. Instead, it has led to bullying, harassment, threats, and the targeting of private individuals.

We will not engage in personal mudslinging. We will not answer harassment with harassment. But we will set a boundary: It is in no one’s interest to remain involved or continue to help if there is no will from the community to support our mission.

The community can decide. If the answer is no, we will respect that and move on.

On the recent conduct in this forum

We want to address the broader community directly on this point. Disagreement with a governance proposal is entirely legitimate. Vigorous debate is healthy. However, what has occurred in this forum goes well beyond disagreement.

The publication of personal and private information about team members and their families, including alleged locations, relationships, and family details, is not acceptable under any circumstances. This is doxxing. It endangers real people who have worked for years to build something for this community. This behaviour violates the forum’s own guidelines and basic standards of decency.

The threats of legal action directed not only at the team but at DAO voters and multisig signers, such as suggesting that anyone who votes “yes” could be prosecuted as an “accomplice to fraud”, are intimidation tactics designed to suppress legitimate governance participation. We want the community to understand clearly: voting on a governance proposal is not a crime, and no one should feel intimidated out of participating in a democratic process.

The 24-hour ultimatums, threats to enlist media personalities for public shaming campaigns, and claims of having contacted “state authorities” are inflammatory rhetoric.
Bullying is clearly not the constructive way forward, and imposing deadlines and demands from anonymous participants will do the opposite of helping this project’s mission.

Hopefully, this message will clarify any misunderstanding, and we can all move forward with a decision that will satisfy everyone.

[george]

“PAY was not a security.” So what? People gave you real BTC and ETH based on promises written in a whitepaper. Not being a security does not give you a free pass to do whatever you want with other people’s money. You know this. Stop hiding behind legal technicalities.

You have “no control or visibility” over COMIT funds? Unbelievable. You took community money, handed it to a side project nobody asked for, and now you shrug and say it is not your problem. That is not transparency — that is negligence at best and misappropriation at worst. Same goes for KUMA. Nobody requested it. Nobody voted on it. You built it with our money and it failed. Where is the accountability?

Now let’s talk about your $500,000 grab. You frame it as “less than half” of DAO funds. Stop insulting our intelligence. It is nearly every dollar of liquid cash the DAO has. You know perfectly well that if this passes, Cooper Labs gets nothing and the protocol dies. That is not a coincidence — that is the plan. And you could not even be bothered to attach a single receipt or invoice. The biggest funding request in this protocol’s history and all we get is one wallet address. That tells us everything we need to know about your intentions.

Your “crossroads” message is not governance. It is extortion. “Give us $500K or we leave and take everything.” That is not how a legitimate team operates. That is how people act when they have run out of money and are looking for one last exit before the door closes.

And now you want to play victim? After nine years of silence, broken promises, failed products, and vanishing funds, the community finally demands answers and you call it “bullying”? You call it “doxxing”? No. This is called accountability. You owed us this conversation years ago. You do not get to hide for nearly a decade and then cry foul when people finally come knocking.

The founder still will not face this community directly. Still hiding. Still silent. That alone tells the entire story.

I vote NO. And every token holder with a shred of sense should do the same.

Drop this proposal. Show us where every cent went since 2017. Then walk away and let the people who actually care about this protocol build something from what is left.

[NL.1]

My thoughts are and stay the same: retrospective fees are sabotage. Nobody makes responsible deals like this. MIMO should be welcome to claiming fees going onward.

[781]

You speak of crossroads, alignment, and respect for the community. You write long paragraphs playing the victim, begging for sympathy after operating in the shadows for years. But your actions scream much louder than this PR statement.

​Let’s be honest for a second: without the massive pressure of the last few hours, we still wouldn’t have heard a single word from you. You would have stayed buried in your usual silence. And this so-called ‘governance process’ you claim to respect? It would have happened right behind our backs. Your ‘democratic vote’ would have quietly passed, rubber-stamped by the 100 million tokens you conveniently deposited right before the snapshot to vote ‘Yes’.

​The plan was perfect, wasn’t it? A governance masquerade, a $500,000 heist, and at the end of the day, we would have all had it shoved right up our asses. You don’t get to hold a loaded gun to the DAO’s head and then tell the community you want a peaceful dialogue. That is not diplomacy, that is a threat.

​You dare ask for $500,000 as ‘compensation’ for your supposedly ‘unfunded’ efforts. Let’s be crystal clear: you were paid in advance by this community in 2017. You are sitting on a treasury of over 3,000 BTC. You were supposed to build the future with that capital. Instead, we got a string of abandoned products and a decade of opaque management. You haven’t been working for free; you simply squandered the massive trust and funds we entrusted you with.

​And now, you want to siphon off the DAO’s last liquid lifeline. Framing it as ‘less than half’ is a deliberate insult to our intelligence. You know perfectly well that taking this cash leaves Cooper Labs with nothing and condemns the protocol to bleed out. It’s an exit scam disguised as a severance package.

​Do not confuse accountability with harassment. If people are angry, it’s because they are finally waking up. After years of blind trust, seeing you try to scrape the bottom of the community’s barrel while hoarding millions is a profound betrayal.

​We are indeed at a crossroads. But you don’t dictate the direction anymore.

​I vote NO. Take your millions tokens, take your empty words, and walk away. The community will rebuild from here.

And let’s be absolutely clear about the 3,000 BTC: we cannot simply let them walk away with it. That treasury was raised by the community, for the community, and we must fight tooth and nail to recover those funds for the DAO !!!

More importantly, recovering our rightful due isn’t just about accountability; it’s about the future.

Getting that treasury back into the DAO’s hands will finally give USDP the runway to impose itself in the stablecoin sphere. It will allow it to accomplish exactly what it was born to be:

a scalable, over-collateralized & decentralized stablecoin protocol. Backed by yield generating correlated assets.

They starved our ecosystem, but with our capital returned, we can give our flagship product the massive backing it needs to actually dominate the market.

781

[arjpet]

It is all so amateurish. The proposal itself is already shaky on all sides. Having an employee of the company post the proposal. Then responding to the criticism with a hastily created “mimo-team” account. If you have such good intentions regarding the protocol, you should have adjusted your proposal accordingly. Asking for such a large portion of DAO funds in one fell swoop without any accountability does not strike me as an example of good intentions. I vote NO.

[MTTM]

To the MIMO Team,

I am writing this message as MTTM, a member of the public who participated in TenX’s ICO in 2017, was one of the first to voice my support of the company after the ousting of former “co-founder” Julian Hosp, fully supported the rebrand to MIMO, witness but did not question the appointment of Claude Equienta after the controversial public expose of Toby Hoenisch…..so on and so forth.

This message is addressed to the company at large, and is specifically meant for every single individual involved in the mismanagement of the company and likely misappropriation of funds.

The “Company” claims to set the record straight and provide context and lay out where things currently stand.

OK STOP.

This is getting ridiculous now. Even after all this, the response you decide is to issue a “legally cleared” statement that not only does not address any single one of the serious questions that have been raised by your users + community but the statement even attempts to place the company on higher morale ground , by trying to downplay the company’s own negligence and misconduct and instead using corporate policy to suppress justifiable emotions expressed by it’s most loyal supporters since it’s inception.

To the community, let’s give the company what they want. They insist on facts and logic. Then I shall gladly do so.

Ready? Allow me to systemically break down the points the company has made and provide fair and justifiable questions.

1. Could you please provide the official statement issued by the management of TenX back in 2017 prior to the ICO, where they framed COMIT as a non-profit foundation? In the whitepaper, COMIT was meant to be a network build by the company, not a non-profit, spun off quietly. Also, if the company did set up COBLOX (the foundation you claim) as a non-profit, could you please point to where the company publish the exact flow of designated funds into the non-profit? To move the majority of the ICO funds quietly under a non-profit structure is a highly tactical move by the founders.

   Please provide the Foundation’s current incorporation details and also concrete evidence of it’s legal structure and set up as a Non-Profit.

   Please provide the current address of the Foundation’s crypto holdings, balance sheet and all the operations and activities from 2017 to present day.

   I know where the funds are. What I want is for the Company and Foundation to be transparent about it. If there is nothing illegitimate going on, then there is no reason to conceal the Crypto holdings, no reason to shield the Foundation.

2. The company claims It has neither control nor visibility over the foundation funds. This is an overly simplified statement that aims to gloss over the magnitude of the mismanagement of the founders, the foundation and the company. Let me point out the irony. If the foundation is a non-profit, then surely it could issue a significant grant towards the company to ensure continued operations and success. It is a “NON-PROFIT” right? So surely, it is created to serve a public or community purpose rather than to generate profit for owners or shareholders.

   What is the foundation’s mission? What is the current shareholding structure? Who is on the board?

   As to the Company, instead of asking the DAO, you could have structured a formal grant application or loan request towards the foundation and seek the community’s opinion and approval. The company could have even structured it as an asset backed loan using assets the company held on it’s own balance sheet. You could have done a private credit deal. There were so many other options the company could have chose.

   You did not because you know these scenarios would never have happened.

   So let me point out the obvious fact that the setup of both the Company and the Foundation must be scrutinised through a legal framework and through a court process.

   The company and Foundation must adequately provide compelling and irrefutable evidence that it acted in the best interest of its ICO participants, its token holders and the general public + community good.

   Yes, the Company is factually right to point out that holding the tokens does not represent a legal security in either entities. Please do not take me as dumb. I am aware this framework and structure was always set up to attempt to create legal immunity for the founders, the foundation and the community.

   The tokens were initially framed as Utility Tokens in order to ensure token holders had no rights. And the way the company and foundation has been managed and operated all these years also leveraged the fact that it was impossible for user / token holders / even most internal employees to have insight into the flow of funds.

   There is however, one mistake the company and Foundation has made.

   Companies / Foundations / Non-Profits are still subjected to general law.

   I can still take action under the rules of Fraud and Misrepresentation.

   The false statements published in the whitepaper or by the company, deceptive marketing and communications, deliberate obfuscation of details using corporate or trade secrets as a cover, and the misuse of funds.

   These triggers both civil and criminal liability.

   It’s really very simple.

   It’s either everything the company and foundation has done is completely legal and innocent and I take back my point, withdraw my case and take the loss.

   Or “You do the crime, You do the time.”

   Life can be very simple, we humans just make it complicated.

   If the company and Foundation claims to be separate and not in breach of the law, then let the court system prove your innocence.

   Talk is cheap. Show us proof.

3. On a short point of KUMA, not only did the company not provide explanation on the closure and failure of the protocol but also only briefly addressed the insolvency of Next.e.GO bonds. Nearly 2 million EUR worth of Kuma Bond Token essentially went to zero. And we never got a proper statement about what the company planned to do going forward. KUMA just essentially faded.

   So, what happened to USK and the rest?

   Provide evidence, proper statements and explanation towards your user.

   If the company owned some of the bonds, what did we do with it? Where is it?

   The company claims Commercial success remains limited but doesn’t go into the details of either next steps or sunsetting of KUMA.

   And if the company claims KUMA is still active. Then who is employed to work on it? What returns does it provide for the community and token holders and ecosystem? What logical tangible reasons are there for KUMA to continue to burn resources?

   If KUMA doesn’t exist, then where is the official statement and position from the company?

   If the creation of KUMA was deemed as beneficial to the ecosystem, then why did the company not decide to first discussed with the DAO first? Especially since significant company resources would have been dedicated to the building of KUMA.

4. The company claims it participated as a user of the protocol and via what it claims to be a fair launch mechanism of the launch of the protocol. What you cleverly leave out is that no user or public token holder was ever involved in the initial tokenomics design of the protocol.

   MIMO, you know this. In the whitepaper itself, on the chapter of governance, it states and I quote:

   “Albeit designed by a founding team, the protocol will thrive by aligning the best interests of MIMO token holders and those of the users. A hostile takeover in which MIMO token holders decided to change the mining rewards towards incentivizing themselves with the proceeds of the usage over the users could result in a less used and less efficient platform. However, this is a risk the founding team is willing to pay as a price for the flexibility and transparency of the protocol, establishing solid grounds for trust. Alongside the voting power mechanism shown below, this system aligns the best interest of the token holders with the long-term usage of the platform.”

   Why does this matter? Because the token emission / distribution parameters was always meant to be a clever trick to maximise the amount of tokens the company would be able to “mine”. Quoting the original MIMO supply distribution:

   “MIMO distribution is managed by the MIMO Distributor module, which mints MIMO tokens according to a supply curve that reduces the amount of new MIMO tokens by 5.55% every week.”
   “Distribution parameters in the first week, 55.5M MIMO will be issued. Then, the amounts issued in subsequent weeks are calculated as: Weekly Issuance = 55.5M ∗ 0.9445weeks”

   Let’s be honest. The founding team and the company intentionally designed this “front loading” emissions model in order to gain a head start compared to the users and public.

   Additionally, the company clearly provided almost all the liquidity in the beginning in order to establish an early adopter advantage.

   The founder and the company knew this. Early participants got disproportionately rewarded compared to later ones.

   Is this common in crypto? Yes. The key here is that based on the public verifiable evidence, the MIMO Vaults Core contract went live on-chain March 2, 2021. The first public post about MIMO liquidity mining going live was posted on April 12, 2021.

   41 days apart.

   If the token supply followed the whitepaper’s math,

   Then there would have been 284 million MIMO tokens mined just in the first 5 weeks.

   That fact alone is concerning since we can safely assume other than the founders and employees, it would be fair to say that public users or token holders would not know about the launch until the post by MIMO on it’s socials.

   However, that is not the only issue. In the April 12 2021 post, MIMO mentions that as of that day,

   “about 34,9% (349M) of the total supply (1B) is left to be minted through liquidity and minting mining.”

   Do the math. That means 651 million MIMO tokens were already mined.

   Maybe I am not seeing something or maybe there is some special hidden different whitepaper or MIMO Distributor module I am not aware of.

   Please explain the reason for the 5 weeks gap between liquidity mining going live and the first public post if the company claims this was a fair launch.

   Please explain to me the discrepancy in my calculations because it seems 367 Million MIMO tokens are somehow unaccounted for.

   From an external point of view, any logical individual could reasonably make the argument that the design and delay could be interpreted as an intentional move to gain unfair upside. Not quite the fair launch the company claims.

   If the courts proof without a doubt that the team knew the goal, launched in advance quietly then delay the public announcement, that’s fraud.

   And here is the most obvious statement hiding in plain sight. On the cover page, abstract section of the MIMO whitepaper, it literally says and I quote:

   “Over time, the Parallel Protocol will progressively decentralize itself, handing over control to a diverse community of people holding the MIMO governance token.”

   It’s very simple really, you all knew you had control right from the very start. Decentralisation was just a ruse, a clever “trick” the company and founders used to enrich themselves disproportionately and gain an unfair advantage.

   Just like the non-profit structure of the foundation, the “legal” separation of the different entities and the “front-load” tokenomics of the protocol.

   You all knew what you were doing. It’s clever, I will give you that.

   But it’s wrong.

   I will end this point here and I look forward to the team’s evidence and proof.

   If I am wrong, I will stand corrected and withdraw my comments on this specific matter respectfully.

5. I have said enough on the many issues the community has raised all these years so I think it’s better to not waste too much time on the same talking points.

   But I am going to be absolutely clear once more.

   There is no justification for the Company to request compensation for the “work” and “resources” that it claims it has poured into the protocol.

   Firstly, the company undertook most of it’s decision on it’s own without first consulting the DAO. This is of course within the company’s own jurisdiction.
   If it claims that all actions it took was to grow the protocol and the ecosystem and decided to dedicate resources to help, then it must therefore be concluded that the company took these actions with the expectation that the tokens it held (which represent the majority and largest position) would stand to increase in nominal value significantly in the long term.

   An investment. The company made a bet, just like the rest of us. And when that bet did not pay off, the company decided to frame its past support and contribution as “corporate favour” or “debt”. Your upside is the same as all of us: The tokens.

   So if the DAO gets worthless tokens, the company gets the same too.

   The company took an investment risk. You do not get to restructure and reframe your allocation of resources just because your own internal circumstances has changed.

   You are on the same boat as us. Now that it’s sinking, you want to bail and take the only life jacket from the rest of us? It doesn’t work that way.

   Essentially, yes, the company dedicated resources and employees towards the protocol. No discussions was conducted with the DAO prior so the idea of a retroactive reimbursement is speculative at best, and at the DAO’s discretion.

   And let me point out that despite this, the DAO and community actually already approved multiple reimbursements in the past, even though it did not need to to the tune of hundred of thousands.

   The DAO did not play dirty. The company did.

6. Now, let’s address the elephant in the room.

   Where has all the money gone, MIMO?

   Your proposal cleverly framed the PGP as compensation but it failed to explain why it needed the 500K. Even as of this moment, the company has not produced a single line item / receipt / on-chain transaction that can possible serve as material proof that the company wishes to apply for funds.

   At no point, did the company addressed the sudden departure of almost the entire team, especially Jean Brasse, who is critical to the continued survival and build out of Parallel.

   The company claims it paid part of Jean’s salary and also funded developer to work on the protocol. Please provide evidence of this and show the work / code push towards the built out of the protocol.

   Don’t just make claims. Proof it.

   In my personal communications and other community users communications with the MIMO employees, through the years, publicly or privately. The team has always expressed and stated that funds were ample and the company had more than enough not just to survive the bear markets but also work on the products and achieve commercial success.

   At no point, were there public signs that the company was running into cashflow issues.

   It is normal for unprofitable companies to fail, if they never achieve product-market fit or suffer a deal collapse like the wire card incident.

   That’s not wrong, that’s just unfortunate.

   What is legally wrong and ethically wrong however is if certain individuals used company funds to enrich themselves directly or indirectly, either through the misuse of funds or misrepresentation.

   If MIMO the company or the foundation is proven to use company funds dishonestly, it constitutes criminal breach of trust and the founders + executive management + parties involved will face imprisonment.

   If individuals did not act in the best interest of the company, they will be in breach of fiduciary duty.

   If the company is effectively broke but continues operating and not paying employees, It may be considered insolvent trading.

   Here is the bottom line.**
   **
   Where has all the money gone? And what is the reason?

   If the company claims that this is not the case, please provide audited evidence of either bank statements / on-chain addresses / balance sheet report from credible sources, dated to this year at minimum.

   I know the company is going to claim that the company remains a private separate entity and has no need nor obligation to procure or reveal corporate information.

   Yes, this is a valid point. Except that it is a fact that the company has ran out of money, owes money to multiple parties, and attempted to seek unjustified compensation from a DAO by leveraging it’s power by means of controlling the majority of the governance vote.

   If the company had no intention to exert pressure on the DAO by means of governance vote, then please explain the rationale behind staking 100 Million PRL just 24 hours before requesting for the funds from the DAO.

   Let me be clear why we need to know if MIMO, the company acted in good faith and at no point of time, breached its fiduciary duty.

   If the courts prove MIMO and key individuals to have broken the law, the DAO will classify the company as malicious actors, acting against the interest of the protocol.

   In that case, the DAO will make the necessary steps to identify, isolate and remove the company’s tokens in order to safe guard its long term survival and interest.

   MIMO, if you are innocent. Proof it.

7. The company claims that the community and the company are no longer aligned. This is not true. In actual fact, for years, the community has actively been voicing their concerns only to be met with suppression or censorship, citing company or community policy. This violate most global consumer protection laws and can be seen as misleading or deceptive conduct.

   By actively trying to keep KUMA / AYA / PRL / MIMO all separate, and not allowing public discourse from one group to another, this could be seen as market manipulation.

   Let me ask the company a question then.

   What is AYA? Where is the supposed AYA wallet or Perp trading tool?

   After 2 years, surely that is no logical reason why we have not seen any significant progress made?

   And strangely enough, what is AYA community?

   Here is the funny thing, I know what it is. I know who the people are. My question is: I wonder if those people in India even know anything about all of us over here? And all the mess that is going on over here?

   MIMO, answer the questions. Stop coming up with excuse and show proof.

   If there is no logical reason for AYA to exist, then it needs to stop. The AYA users will be notified of the situation that this community is facing over here. It is perfectly legal for members of the public to notify and advise other members of the public with information that serves the public good. No law in the world prevents that.

8. The company states that if the community votes NO, it will simply walk away.

   Unfortunately, it’s not so simple. The DAO is not stupid. If the DAO gains control, charts its own path and succeeds, which it will.

   The company assumes it will stand to massively benefit financially when the token appreciates in value in the future since it holds nearly 50% of the entire supply currently.

   That will not be allowed to happen.

   It will be a gross violation of the law. If MIMO is found guilty of fraud, misuse of funds and breach of fiduciary duty, it will not be legally entitled to its share of tokens in the protocol.

   I understand how this is structured and the DAO will take steps to gain control, freeze or remove the company’s token. There will be a legal framework and plan in place to protect the protocol’s long term interest.

   If MIMO / the foundation / the founders / the executive team is confident that they did not legal wrong. I invite you to confidently step into the legal and public spotlight and defend your innocence. Please provide comprehensive and conclusive evidence that the all parties involved did not in any way, in the past 9 years, violate any single piece of civil and criminal law when it comes to both employee, founder and company conduct.

   If not, I take silence as public admission of guilt.

9. The company claims that if they walk away, the company will not include the DAO / protocol in its future plans.

   “There will be no future collaboration, no shared economic incentives, and no continued involvement from our side.”
   “We intend to continue treating the Parallel Protocol, even though properly decentralized, as a key product of the ecosystem we’re trying to build. We will integrate it into future projects where it makes sense and remain an active participant in the ecosystem’s growth.”

   Please provide evidence of all ongoing current efforts when it comes to the proposed products and plans the MIMO is working on. Based on investigations carried out thus far, this is not the actual case.

   If MIMO made a false claim or misrepresentation of a future promise with no actual resources or taken steps towards those claims, in an attempt to seek “compensation” or “funds”.

   MIMO essentially committed fraud.

   If I am wrong, and it is not just empty promises again. Please provide evidence of all current ongoing work / current employees / proof of solvency etc.

10. There is a reason why the DAO and community pushed back. Nothing happens without a reason.

    “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire”

    The company believes the “conduct” I exhibited is not acceptable. Yet it fails to mention that I made an intentional effort not to reveal or mention any actual, private, sensitive or revealing information that cannot be publicly gathered. No addresses or numbers, no private messages or identifying clues.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I am pretty sure that If I did not step into this and voice my objection, along with the support of the rest of the community, we would never have received a response. The company would have assumed it was going to simply vote on the proposal, and move on with the funds.

    Additionally, reminding the community and DAO signees of their legal responsibilities does not constitute a “threat” as the company claims.

    In all legal systems around the world, you are allowed to warn people about potential risk or legal issues as long as my statements are truthful and factual.

    No direct personal threats were made. People were only reminded of the potential legal consequences.

    Asking users to err on the side caution is not a threat nor intimidation.

    MIMO, I will serve your point back to you.

    THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IS.

    If anything I said was wrong, and the company could prove otherwise, the community would have sided with you.

    They would have voted YES.

    Lastly, enlisting media personalities was not to public shame, it’s meant to publicly expose. If the company is completely innocent, then this would be a fantastic opportunity to not just prove your innocence but even gain new users. A potential win-win situation.

I will end with this final point.

No one can possibly “bully” the company. Asking fair and justified questions is not bullying. It’s called accountability.

Claude, personally, it’s very dissapointing that after everything. You still chose not to ever address us or talk to us personally. You use the company as a shield and hide behind this “legally-vetted”, “press-approved” statement to try to sweep all the years of the community’s support away.

Even when the longest team employees like Thomas, Jean or Yaya announced that they were leaving, even as the CEO, you couldn’t bother to even show up and talk to us.

Your silence, along with Toby and Paul, is deafening and sickening.

I am humbled to have the community’s support not because I do anything special.

All I do is try to be a decent human being, one that knows right from wrong, one that stands up for the weak even though I am fucking scared myself too.

But if not me, then who will?

I listen and look objectively, voice my opinions factually and then express myself passionately.

That’s called being human.

Yes, I admit that I am strong with my tone and at times, I am ruthless with my words.

But the reason is because I cared about this team, this community and this protocol.

Was it about making a huge return on my investment?

Of course it fucking was.

I invested in what was meant to be a promising rocket, meant to change the world, and change our lives.

Instead we got a fucking “NON-PROFIT”

I sleep well every night, because I know I donated to a charity.

Made all of you smile reading that right? Sometimes, we just got to use humor to heal the wounds.

I must admit that this was well-played by all of the parties involved.

A really really good joke and I had a great laugh.

But playtime’s over and now is time for us to get to work.

Truth prevails. It always will.

MTTM

[781]

Honestly, there is nothing more to add. You just laid out the reality.

​It’s incredible to have someone defending the protocol like this, and frankly, it was completely unexpected. Thank you, MTTM.

​Let’s stand united as a protocol now more than ever, and defend our positions.

[Rdnaxela]

Hi, I of course will vote no

Nothing to add

[Nowayout]

On the Proposal and Community Reaction

I think the main issue here isn’t even whether the team deserves recognition for the work done over the years. It’s more about how the proposal was structured.

Honestly, a proposal that used the $500k to retroactively reward long-term PRL stakers and contributors would probably have had way more support from the community.

Because at the end of the day, all of this—TenX, Mimo, Parallel—only exists because of the community. The original TenX ICO provided the capital that made everything possible in the first place. Without that funding and the people who stuck around and kept participating, none of the later development would have happened.

Why this matters

The current proposal kind of feels like:

“pay us back for what we built (or try to build ) - but it was not successful“

Whereas a retroactive distribution would feel more like:

“we all supported this in the long run together”

And in a DAO, that difference is huge.

Why a different approach would’ve worked better

If the proposal had focused on rewarding long-term contributors:

• The community would feel acknowledged, especially early supporters

• The team would still benefit anyway (since you’ve also been participating)

• It wouldn’t come across as a one-sided ask

• There would probably be way less pushback and drama

It just aligns better with how people expect things to work in a decentralized project.

Missed opportunity

Going for a direct treasury request instead kind of makes it look like a self-serving move, even if that wasn’t the intention.

Bottom line

No one is saying the team didn’t contribute. But those contributions were only possible because the community was there from the start.

And be fair most of the community members were not part of your fancy Dubai parties.

A proposal that included and rewarded long-term Mimo / PRL supporters instead of prioritizing a direct payout would have reflected that better—and probably led to a much better outcome for everyone.

You decided go a different way … not sure if it is a better one

[george]

Counter-Proposal: Retroactive Compensation to Mimo Team — Revised Terms

Type: PGP — Treasury / Fee Allocation

---

Summary

This proposal is a counter to the Mimo Team’s request for a one-time $500,000 USDC transfer from accrued protocol fees as retroactive compensation for past services. While we acknowledge the Mimo Team’s meaningful contributions to the Parallel Protocol and support the principle of fair compensation, we believe the proposed terms are not in the best interest of the DAO and its token holders.

We put forward an alternative arrangement consisting of three components:

1. A one-time cash payment of $100,000 USDC as a retroactive service fee,

2. A token buyback by the DAO: the Mimo Team transfers approximately 150,000,000 PRL to the DAO Treasury in exchange for the above cash payment, retaining no more than 10,000,000 PRL,

3. A revenue share agreement combined with Cooper Labs integration support for the Mimo Team’s future products.

---

Context & Rationale

Acknowledging Past Contributions

We do not dispute that the Mimo Team provided substantial services during the early stages of the Parallel Protocol — including development, security audits, marketing, compliance work, and ecosystem efforts. These contributions are real and deserve recognition.

Why $500,000 in Cash Alone Is Not the Right Structure

However, a straight $500,000 USDC payment from protocol fees presents several concerns:

• It depletes a significant portion of accrued protocol fees without any structural benefit to the DAO or its token holders.

• It sets no precedent for alignment between the Mimo Team and the long-term success of the protocol — compensation is disconnected from future performance.

• It does not address the token overhang: a large concentration of PRL tokens held by the Mimo Team creates ongoing sell pressure and misaligned incentives for the broader community.

Why This Counter-Proposal Is a Better Outcome for Both Sides

Under the current PRL market price, $100,000 USD is equivalent to approximately 55,000,000 PRL tokens. We are offering the Mimo Team $100,000 USDC in exchange for ~150,000,000 PRL tokens — implying a token valuation of approximately $0.00067 per PRL, which represents a discount to the current spot price.

From the DAO’s perspective, this is a compelling trade: the DAO pays $100,000 in cash and receives approximately $273,000 worth of PRL at current market prices, which can be burned or held in the Treasury — permanently reducing circulating supply and benefiting all PRL holders.

From the Mimo Team’s perspective, this provides immediate liquidity ($100,000 USDC) while retaining 10,000,000 PRL as continued upside and voice in the protocol.

We believe this structure is fair, transparent, and better aligned with the long-term interests of the protocol.

---

What This Proposal Does (Scope)

In Scope

• Transfer of $100,000 USDC from accrued protocol fees held in the fee smart contract to the Mimo Team, as a one-time retroactive service fee.

• Transfer by the Mimo Team of approximately 150,000,000 PRL tokens to the DAO Treasury, retaining no more than 10,000,000 PRL.

• The DAO Treasury will burn the received PRL tokens, permanently reducing the circulating supply.

• Establishment of a revenue share arrangement for the Mimo Team, the terms of which will be defined in a follow-up proposal.

• A Cooper Labs integration support agreement: Cooper Labs commits to actively supporting the Mimo Team’s future products with integration assistance, technical collaboration, and ecosystem access.

Out of Scope

• Any change to future protocol fee rates, reserves, emissions, or incentive schedules.

• Any ongoing entitlement to protocol fees beyond the revenue share arrangement to be defined separately.

• Any change to the DAO’s long-term treasury policy.

---

Implementation

Step 1 — Token Transfer (Mimo Team → DAO Treasury) The Mimo Team transfers 150,000,000 PRL to the DAO Multisig address prior to the release of any funds.

Step 2 — Cash Transfer (DAO → Mimo Team) Upon confirmation of the token transfer on-chain, the DAO Multisig releases $100,000 USDC to: 0xA804F6b4b6d0d9644811b45fe7eA389928786430

Step 3 — Token Burn The DAO burns the received PRL tokens by sending them to the zero address: 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Step 4 — Revenue Share & Cooper Labs Agreement Both parties commit to drafting and ratifying the revenue share terms and Cooper Labs integration support agreement within 30 days of this proposal passing.

[CooperLabs]

As Parallel’s service provider, Cooper Labs confirms its readiness to support Mimo Labs with integration into the Parallel ecosystem, as referenced in this counter-proposal.

To be clear: this is not a special arrangement. Cooper Labs actively supports any entity looking to integrate and build on top of Parallel and its products, whether it’s Mimo Labs, a DeFi protocol, a chain, or any other partner. Providing technical integration support is part of our mandate as the protocol’s service provider.

On the technical side, we can confirm that the token transfer outlined in Step 1 is feasible regardless of the current form of the tokens. The ~100M PRL currently staked as sPRL1 can be unstaked (subject to the standard cooldown period of one epoch) and then transferred alongside the remaining unstaked PRL. Alternatively, the sPRL1 tokens could be transferred directly to the DAO Treasury, which would then manage the unstaking process. Either path works.

Should the DAO reach a decision on this matter, we are available to work on the integration support agreement at any time.