Constrain safe guardians to ensure safe healthy development

Safe Ecosystem Safe Guardians
1

Based on the information from the source Guardians Gather, we can understand that there are only around 100 guardians.
image

But they have been allocated 25 million SAFEs for immediate unlock and 25 million SAFEs for linear unlock.

Compared with safe users, there are only 25 million SAFEs for more than 11k users.

In other words, by Q1 2024, if SAFEs are transferable, they would hold nearly 40 million SAFEs.

As described, guardians are responsible for managing the SAFE ecosystem and protocol, but without proper regulations and limitations, guardians could potentially abuse the SAFEs they obtained for free, especially individual guardians.

They might sell the free SAFEs when transferable. Can they still be considered responsible guardians if they do so?

According to the examples of most existing mature projects, they should take the lead in staking their own SAFEs instead of selling off the trust given to them by the community whenever there is a benefit.

If they give up their voting and governance rights and unwillingly contribute to the growth of SAFE, instead acting more like speculators, can they still be considered responsible guardians?

Without a doubt, this will discourage the enthusiasm of potential contributors and members who want to join the SAFE community.

Guardians, as their name suggests, should be guarding the growth of SAFE instead of acting as speculators.

Given this background, should we initiate a proposal to restrict the initial selling of SAFEs by guardians to ensure that they are doing the right thing and promote the healthy development of the SAFE community?

What are your opinions or suggestions? Please share your thoughts.

3 Likes
2

I don’t agree. I suggest that the safe team restrain the safe tokens of my safe investment institutions. They hold more safe tokens, especially since the investment institutions have controlled the voting rights. It is recommended that the safe tokens of investment institutions be permanently locked for the sake of safety. healthy development of the platform. We need users, not whales to control safe.

2 Likes
4

Your data analysis is not correct.

50M tokens were to be distributed to Guardians (both Volume 1 and other batches to come)

25M $SAFE were allocated to the present Volume 1 Guardians of which only Half (12.5M token) were released and the remaining Half (12.5M token) vested over 4 years.

Some Guardians didn’t even redeem and the unredeemed tokens got returned to the Treasury.

Those that got bulk of the token are fellow big projects which has higher chances of holding the token.

5 Likes
5

Please check SAFE top 200 holder activities, there were some suspicious activity.
The activity time and interaction address of the owner before and after the change are not the same person.
It seems some whales have sold their shares.

7

Jumping in here, as recently there seems to be a trend to cast unsubstantiated claims in our community discussions. Unfounded statements, if not properly substantiated, can lead to misinformation and undermine the productivity of the discussions.

@sunita_berma, your mention of ‘suspicious activity’ is vague and potentially misleading without specific details. Please provide clear and verifiable information when making such assertions.

3 Likes
8

Later I will provide analysis of SAFE top 200 holder.
pls stay tune