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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.