Big questions for SAFE TEAM

@Andre @lukas @lorny - Please Provide us with answers to questions in this thread

P.S Because my questions on this topic are ignored, Comrade @RSivakov advised me to create a separate topic so that everyone can get an answer to these questions and, if necessary, enter into a discussion, I believe that without receiving answers to these questions we will not have transparency in our “DAO”

Hello everyone, I apologize in advance for my bad English. Initially, I wanted to ask these questions personally to the safe team. Still, I decided that many are also interested in this and those who are not, will probably be interested in why this happened :slight_smile:

  1. Why does Safe have 2 tokens? Initially, the first token

0x5aFE3855358E112B5647B952709E6165e1c1eEEe - the contract was created as a non-transferable token

BUT I found a token that was also created much later - 0x9aE357521153FB07bE6F5792CE7a49752638fbb7 it is transferable, you experimented, and added liquidity but the community doesn’t even know about it, moreover.

on the Internet, I found this - GitHub - z0r0z/vSafe: Virtual Safe Token This is one of the opinions on what can be done with safe tokens, this post is more than 10 months old BUT NO ONE HAS NEVER remembered this!

Hidden development of a transferable token, complete disregard for the vsafe idea, how does it work?

2.1) If the token remains non-transferable, what was the point for investors to invest $100 million? What will be their benefit, since this is not a charity and their only opportunity to return the investment is to make the token transferable?!

2.2) What will be the point of a DAO if the token remains without the possibility of transfer and the voices of several thousand users will not be heard because of a couple of whales
how it was here -

7.8% Manages 92%, this is not fair in any case, and understanding this problem will give us a chance to move on. This is not a DAO. This screenshot clearly shows how the main investors of the project simply decide everything

3.1 The safe stated that it “rewards users” what is the reward if the tokens cannot be sold, exchanged, transferred for real money, or any privileges?

p.s No I’m not a hunter for easy money, I just don’t understand why tokens are needed with which nothing can be done

3.2 If the token remains non-transferable, what is the point of most people on this forum except the delegates?

In voting sep#2, we saw that the forum only needs a couple of people, since they can easily replace even thousands of solutions; if the token remains useless, then it makes sense to offer ideas, waste your time knowing that the first:

  1. Your ideas will be used for free

  2. Even if your idea is very good and cool, then 1-2 whales with 10-20 million safe tokens can easily cancel it

  3. The DAO hides from us the development of a token that has value, hides what motives investors have if the token remains non-transferable, but at the same time, in any convenient case, it says that WE are a DAO!

No guys it doesn’t work like that…

  1. If optimism and arbitration issued tokens for our DAO, how many safe tokens did we allocate to them in return for their DAO and do they take part in management?

  2. Also at address 0x5aFE3855358E112B5647B952709E6165e1c1eEEe

there are tokens from Thrupenny worth more than 230,000 thousand dollars, what were these tokens for and why are they on the safe token contract?

7.[REVIEW] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] [Updated template] Safe - Governance Fund: Phase 1 - Optimism Collective

“We cannot officially commit to co-incentives right now, as our Safe token and DAO has not officially launched yet. That said, post-launch, the core team will publish a proposal to our newly established DAO to match our potential OP allocation with SAFE incentives”

I don’t know how to feel about this, more than a year has passed, but there is no such topic on this forum. Can we assume that the safe team did not fulfill its promises and did not thank Optimism for the grant issued?

It’s unpleasant for me that I find such facts about the safe, hidden development of tokens, failure to fulfill promises before optimism, incomprehensible situations with investors…

I really don’t understand, you allocate huge amounts of money for grants but cannot enable portability, you are ready to throw away millions received as a grant, but at the same time you do not consider it necessary to send them the required number of safe tokens…



Hey Bruce, just wanted to quickly let you know that I saw this thread. There are a bunch of questions in there and happy to answer them all. We pushed two proposals to voting stage today and will get to it later. But just to let you know this has not been overseen or forgotten.


Hi Bruce, really appreciate you taking the time and your effort to seek clarity on your questions regarding the dynamics of the Safe token and governance.

  1. Re Virtual Safe Token: The Virtual Safe Token is not associated with Safe. It was neither developed nor endorsed by the Safe Foundation or Core Team. To make the Safe token transferable on a technical level the DAO needs to call the unpause() function in the ERC-20 Open Zeppelin contract. There are no technical blockers.

  2. Re Token transferability: The approach to vote again on token transferability is outlined in SEP #3. These milestones were introduced by token holders, delegates and guardians as a thoughtful approach and intended to answer crucial questions before transferability should be revisited (i.e. questions on governance, resource allocation and token utility). Once the last milestone is met, the transferability of SAFE can be put to a vote.

  3. Re OP/ARB allocations: DAOs oftentimes give allocations to other ecosystem projects that are purely based on the objective of enhancing and deploying them to the ecosystem, e.g. Optimism’s RetroPGF rounds. It’s important to note that we have not engaged in a DAO2DAO token swap, and there is no sort of influence or control exerted by these allocations.

  4. Re Penny token: This token was likely sent in error by the sender, as it was directed to the smart contract of the Safe token and not even to the treasury. In any case, these token are not part of the DAO treasury. We’ll see if we can somehow help with the recovery.

  5. Re Voting power consolidation: In any system that involves delegates, it’s normal to see consolidation of voting power. Nevertheless we are working on extending the possibilities of delegation, e.g. by exploring solutions such as partial delegation (for now you can only delegate your whole voting power) and running delegation campaigns. This is also one of the strategies under OBRA that is up for a vote.

Let me know if that answers the questions.


Greetings ! Thank you for answering some of my questions, but some questions remain unanswered, please answer them :slight_smile:

  1. If the token remains non-transferable, what was the point for investors to invest $100 million? What will be their benefit, since this is not a charity and their only opportunity to return the investment is to make the token transferable?!

  2. The safe stated that it “rewards users” what is the reward if the tokens cannot be sold, exchanged, transferred for real money, or any privileges?

  3. 0x9aE357521153FB07bE6F5792CE7a49752638fbb7 - Why you create this token , why you add luqidity ? And why you don’t give this token people ?


Questions 1 and 2 are hypothetical as it says that the token would never become transferable. As mentioned there are no technical blockers, the roadmap to transferability is clear and one of the goals of the constitutions is to tokenize value.

Re question 3: This is a scam token. Also for anyone else coming across this thread, please be careful not to look for or interact with token contracts where anyone can add “SAFE” as a contract name. The correct token address for SAFE is 0x5aFE3855358E112B5647B952709E6165e1c1eEEe.

  1. Regarding questions 1 and 2, why is this a completely reasonable question? In this case, if the token remains non-transferable, what is the benefit for investors?

  2. Still, on the optimism forum, you promised to create a thread in which you would invite the community to transfer tokens to optimism, and I apologize, I did not fully understand why the arbitrator allocated tokens to us if no voting was held

  3. About price safe token ,
    will the safe contribute some part of the liquidity in order to give a high price to the token?

  4. How long does it take to develop the token utility and when is the deadline?

Hi Bruce, just to chime in. Appreciate your impatience here ser, but I don’t feel it’s super productive to push ‘wen token,’ when there is a structured plan in terms of milestones and the team is continuously developing and publicly releasing updates.

On 1 & 2, not sure if I follow your argumentation line here. To my knowledge, Safe never stated anywhere, that the token is intended to remain non-transferable. Transferability is in the sole domain of the DAO. There was a decision from the community that before continuing to explore transferability, we should follow a structured approach along 5 specific milestones. Once these are met, the question of enabling the transferability of SAFE will be revisited and put to a vote again. And feels like we’ve been all collectively working toward the milestones since then.

Similar regarding the token utility. The latest on this is the recent idea submission thread for token utility. 3 structured threads exist on the topic, where you could contribute productively to contribute ideas. The team just recently posted a comment that there is an update coming soon.
1. Token Utility Initial Topic Thread
2. Token Utility Call for Input - Instructions
3. Token Utility Call for Input - Submissions

Btw I think “giving a high price to the token” is not what is or should be the priority of any legitimate project.

I found the regular community calls to be super helpful to dig into these more granular topics. Lots of productive discussions there :slight_smile:


I don’t know why you stubbornly ignore the fact that all DAOs have a transferable token that “rewards” users, which can be transferred over time, staked, or simply left.

Arbitrum, optimism, APE, celestia, strk, layer zero, uniswap, 1inch, AMPL, none of the major DAOs are engaged in giving their users a “token” that they propose to develop, seriously?

For example, did the lack of a constitution for Arbitrum and the DAO before the airdrop in general somehow affect the users?

Maybe Celestia? You yourself understand perfectly well that no, and that the arbitrator calmly distributed 1 billion dollars to everyone and the interest in this network and their token, even after the airdrop, is quite high

I’m trying to convey to you a simple idea… A person doesn’t want candy wrappers if you say in plain text that you “Reward” users, then it should be exactly like this if these were NFTs or some other bonuses it would be different, but we are talking about rewarding people who contributed and some, such as investors, bought the token for $1.25 , the lack of a clear plan for whether the program will be unblocked calls into question the words about awards, investments, and so on. For me, as for most users, everything is simple: if it’s an airdrop, then it’s something that you can use, give it to a friend/sell/stake for profit, no one will do anything for free, and that’s logical, isn’t it?

I am for honesty, these stages arose as a result of the fact that 7.8% of whales/delegates decided for 92% of people, is this a DAO?)

These are initially unequal conditions when 1 person has an average of 800 safe tokens and next to him is a whale with 8 million, here of course we can say that in any DAO there are whales, it is true that only in any large DAO you can buy at least a million worth of tokens , but we have such an opportunity, we can simply add our votes to the delegates and hope that a couple of whales will not fail the next vote, is this a thing?

And now tell me :slight_smile:

  1. Do Large DAOs have a non-transferable token with an initial advantage in favor of investors?

  2. What should a DAO focus on? What is the point in avoiding the topic of a token if, in fact, a DAO is built on a token because it provides opportunities for voting, attracting funding, and rewarding users?

I think I don’t follow your argumentation line here, did ever anyone say that the token will remain non-transferable? Like ARB, UNI, 1INCH, and other tokens you mentioned, it seems there are similarly no technical blockers for the SAFE token to become transferable, and there is a clear roadmap that indicates this could become a reality if the DAO decides so after milestones are achieved.

Also, I haven’t noticed anyone avoiding discussions about token utility. There has been active participation in the threads I’ve shared (even a call for public submissions), and the SAFE team is typically pretty responsive to questions both here and during live community calls, at least from my experience.