I have participated in SafeDAO governance for almost two months and I would like to point out some issues that exist in SafeDAO. And I will no longer participate in the governance of SafeDAO, because I feel that users are not respected enough compared to the team/investors/guardians. As a normal user, I was very disappointed in my participation in SafeDAO.
On a few core issues:
- The team can control the proposal almost 100% in the process, whether it is using various strange rules, or deliberately delaying the time for the proposal to enter the next stage, or the official Twitter intentionally not retweeting a proposal (even if the proposal meets the standards) , or even deliberately not numbering a proposal.
In fact, the last feedback for SEP #1 came on October 3rd, but it wasn’t entered the snapshot until Oct 18, and many community members expressed dissatisfaction with the delay. (And the team did not put SEP#1 on the snapshot on time as promised, but it was submitted by the community members on the snapshot).
And my proposal([SEP # ] Make The Safe Token Transferable - #7 by theobtl) is actually complete in format and summarizing the opinions of the community members, and, it was published three days ago and entered phase 1, but the team directly locked my proposal without my explicit approval (no longer giving me a chance to speak), and listed Daniel’s discussion as SEP #2 (in fact, Daniel himself did not bring this proposal into the phase 1, and my proposal entered phase 1 three days earlier than Daniel), although I agreed to let Daniel’s proposal enter SEP earlier, it seems rather dictatorial for the team to make such a move without asking for consent.
- Users do not have sufficient voting rights in fact, which does not meet the team’s stated goal of turning Safe into a public good.
In the initial voting rights given by the team, users only accounted for 17.9%, while the team and investors combined reached 64.3%.
What’s more, only 17% of users claim (the OP’s claim rate reached 70% two weeks after launch) after the peak period of claims has passed, which means that users actually only have about 3.5% of the voting power.
I personally think that most users don’t get a reasonable amount of tokens, knowing that a Safe is usually managed by multiple people, 43,000 Safes that are eligible for airdrops means that there are 100,000 users behind them, but 100,000 people Only 50M tokens were allocated, and 140 guardians were allocated 25M tokens. I recognize the contribution of the guardians, but it is obvious that the team did not pay attention to users from the beginning. In my opinion, this is why only 17% user claimed their token.
Below is the letter I sent to the team DM, but they did not respond effectively to my query, I sent these two letters as open letters. I don’t know if Safe Team will lock this letter like it locked my SEP, but I will still send this letter.
Letter 1 , Oct 23
Hi Safe Team, please assign a number to this SEP, and post it on official governance twitter so we can see more feedback/attitudes about it. [SEP # ] Make The Safe Token Transferable
I don’t know why you guys haven’t assigned number and retweets for so many days, I don’t want to maliciously discredit you, but
- This proposal is actually the most discussed and participated proposal. Even if it has never been retweeted by the official Twitter, there are more than 60 comments in total, and more than 500 people have participated in the relevant temperature voting. It is more of a community proposal than SEP#1.
- SEP#1 was assigned a number on the first day of release, and got an announcement on the official Twitter, but this proposal has been released for nearly three days, and still no official response has been seen.
Since these Twitter accounts are actually controlled by official staff, you can actually control the level of publicity of the proposal.
If you are not interested in a proposal and intentionally don’t retweet it, the proposal will never be known to the majority of community members unless the person posting the proposal is a social influencer, which is not decentralized at all.
- So far, less than 20%(about 17%) of users have claimed their SAFE airdrops. Knowing that the peak period of airdrop claims has long passed, such a low percentage of user claims is unreasonable.
I personally think that most users are not satisfied with the amount of airdrops they get, even if wintermute has more than 800 transactions and asset storage of more than 30m, they still only get less than 20k tokens, and more than 99% of users do not Eligible to initiate proposals (including me, I only have 3k tokens, but several community members have pledged to help me bring this SEP to snapshot).
In the initial proportion of voting rights, users only had 17.9% of the voting rights, while the voting rights of the team and investors accounted for more than 64.3%. In the case of such a low user claim rate (the speed of claims has been very slow - less than 100 times a day, I think the user’s claim rate will not exceed 30% even after the claim period ends), the user actually has less than 3.5% of the voting rights.
You must know that the user’s voting rights reached 100% when Optimism was launched. (Even counting committees, users have 50% of voting power).
Especially when most of the tokens of the team and investors will not be released this year, so it can be considered that it is not in your interest to let the tokens circulate this year, I am not sure if this is the reason why you do not forward this proposal, but you There is indeed an incentive to do so.
You must know that 3.5% of user voting rights have made SafeDAO not like the proportion of user voting rights that a normal public good should have. If this proposal is also deliberately blocked by officials on social media, then the so-called SafeDAO is actually It’s just the dictatorship of a few people.
I am very angry, otherwise I would not have used such harsh words.
If there is still no official number assigned to this proposal on the 25th, I will post these contents as an open letter to the forum and have social influencers I know retweet the letter.
Letter2 , Oct 24
Listen friends, I don’t mean to discredit you, because Safe is in fact the most important infrastructure in the Ethereum ecosystem, which is inseparable from your outstanding abilities and efforts.
Also, I know you guys have been busy migrating recently, and you probably don’t have a lot of energy to spend on forum governance, and I understand that.
However, I think that you have not done a good enough job in the governance of SafeDAO, you have not done a good job of what the official should do, and the response speed is often too slow.
I have to point out the core problem, as I said before
- The team can control the timing of numbering the proposal, and the governance Twitter is also controlled by the team, and the team can actually delay/block a proposal on purpose. Like the last feedback in SEP #1 that it took two full weeks to vote, it was inseparable from the team’s procrastination (whether intentional or not).
- The issue of voting rights, I mentioned, in fact, the current voting rights of users are only 3.5%. This is not the voting rights of users that a public product should have. You can refer to any other public products such as ENS, OP, UNI, and see Is what I said right?
- You have also realized that compared to other products, is the claim rate of Safe airdrop too low? A claim rate of 17% one month after opening for collection is very rare. I can honestly say that this was a failed airdrop.
In any case, you should understand that in fact in the governance of SafeDAO, the team has almost 100% decision-making power, as if my proposal actually entered Phase 1 (three days ago) earlier than Daniel, and it is more complete in format, but You still have no hesitation in numbering Daniel’s proposal earlier without asking me for my opinion in advance.
You can check out my panel, in fact I spend a lot of time participating in Safe forum governance, and as a participant in OP governance I also voted for Safe’s proposal, I’m really interested in participating in this kind of governance experiment.
But as an ordinary participant (because I am not a social influencer), I feel that users in SafeDAO do not have any real right to speak (you can see this from user airdrops, and more than 99% of users get insufficient tokens to initiate a proposal).