Every public good starts off small. We, the minority, have been invited to participate in these chats and make a contribution. As I indicated early, DAO’s are not that decentralized as people think they are. For the DAO to work it needs strong guidance, goals and structure. THEN, we address the voter imbalances and amplify the voices of the minority.
To save for semantics, I agree, It doesn’t matter if the wallets are completely doxxed and we should avoid that for OPSEC reasons. Although, these are safe contracts that are directly connected to each other through ownership— effectively, the balance is 12M for one entity imo, it’s just spread across two accounts on chain.
Some accountability should be maintained if we are to adhere to the constitution or at least if number 2 has merit, then we should aim to identify entities that sway the vote by 12M. Which is a considerable percentage and enough to pass the quorum threshold by 2 million votes.
I also hear you, DAOs are not as ‘decentralized’ as they insist. Having worked for one, I can attest to that with experience. But, we do have the ability to change that and push for a more reasonable level of decentralization.
The point of decentralization is to sufficiently distribute power as to not have single points of failure or concentrated influence over a networks operation. SafeDAO as it is— without transferrability —is insufficiently decentralized at the protocol level. Because the smaller holders in concentration, must meet together in entirety to combat a few majority holders and cannot become majority holders themselves— without an unprecedented level of coordination.
If major holders can corroborate to ensure a directional vote, then the process gets corrupted by personal incentives.
Without the “largest voter” the vote was nearly balanced at 8.3 M to 11 M. Given a few more days, it boils down to a contested proposal and not a landslide decision: which for what it’s worth, any smaller voters would likely abstain from the vote after seeing 12M get added in opposition— because as you said:
Which I think is also pervasive to the argument itself, because 400 votes are not worthless and clouds overall judgment. At the end of the day, a few votes should/could be the deciding factor.
As I stated before as well, I really don’t mind what the vote turns out to be and am happy to participate in democratic processes regardless of the decision. Overall, freedom of choice will help the industry become resilient and long lasting.
TLDR: Going forward, I’d simply appreciate more clarity around voters, regardless of their token amts. and not overly invasive either.
I’d also like to see an ‘abstain from vote’ field added for those who either don’t want to vote because they have no opinion, have conflicts of interest or otherwise feel their votes won’t change the outcomes: at least this way we can possibly gain a better understanding of motives and proposal interpretation.
The less we jumble decisions together, the more clear it is to voice an opinion.
just gonna throw my 2 cents in here because i know there’s a million people thinking it but are too polite to say it. a lot of people were excited about this airdrop, and the project as a whole, but the way things are turning out this is looking to be a very big disappointment.
i’ll explain why, and give an off the top of my head brainstorm-esque solution for each below:
aa: the dao can’t even decide when or why to open a proposal, this is defeating the entire purpose of the concept of a dao. in my opinion, the main reason for this is people seem to be way over thinking or over complicating things for reasons i have yet to figure out
ab: keep it simple, don’t over complicate things for the sake of over complicating things. don’t be afraid of multiple less complicated proposals in favor of one big proposal with all sorts of information and technical details. 99% of the people participating aren’t developers, 70% aren’t primarily english speakers.
ba: things move slow, and delays are constant
bb: i know software is hard, but the undecidedness and delays just kill any enthusiasm. keep things fast paced, get things done, get people involved. set weekly goals, and try to do a proposal every week or two. even if they’re not critical. active community = success.
ca: team seems to be heavily biased towards keeping tokens locked
cb: it would be a lot easier if the team just told us why they want to keep them locked. is it fears of government/law breaking, fear of launching during bear, or something else entirely? honesty is the best policy. if its a valid reason people won’t have any issues with it. an important tidbit, and this goes for everyone worried about the price of the token: the state of this dao as it exists at this moment is infinitely more damaging to the price of the token than launching during the bear. delaying and making things take months instead of days or hours, people lose interest. people have extremely short attention spans, crypto is a fast moving space, it’s easy to become irrelevant and once that happens it’s a whole lot harder to become relevant again.
da: two wallets controlling a majority of voting power
db: if the above 3 complaints achieve some semblance of resulution, this one fixes itself. but as it is now, this is kind of not good and anyone who denies is themselves in denial. in my opinion a logarithmic token:vote power ratio as opposed to linear makes a lot of sense, and solves the problem of whales while still giving them a greater say than the smaller holders
anyways i’m by no means an expert and the more i know the more i know i dont know so take everything i say with a grain of sand. this post might have been better elsewhere, apologies if considered off-topic. also the intent of this post isn’t to offend anyone, also apologies. thanks for listening.
Does anybody know if the investors tokens are locked in any way aside from the contract being paused?
Have those invested agreed to not sell their holdings for X amount of time?
Might explain why the investors voted against unpausing, if they can stop trade by vote until they can participate in it.
I agree with you very much. The above 8 million safe accounts should be transparent and open. If five people in the community the final say, what should they vote for and do? Then safe will be very dangerous in the future!
@theobtl You ask me to reply to someones comment from a different thread, on this thread because it more suits the topic here?
And yet this thread is dead as a door mouse.
The last question to be asked has been completely ignored.
Are you asking me to move my statement to the thread you’re choosing to ignore entirely?
Perhaps pantomime was not accurate enough, Circle Jerk seems more apt now.
You’ve done a lot of research and analysis on the facts. There’s nothing else I can add to these facts, I apologise. Please don’t assume I’m the one deciding on these facts — I’m merely coordinating how SAFE token holders come to decisions since the launch of SafeDAO or relay decisions taken beforehand.
As of commentary and potential changes, the team is working on a comprehensive blog post that may answer some of your question and will hopefully provide a basis for discussion for anything that needs to be changed.
In regards to the result of sep #3. those 2 wallets could have abstained and shifted the vote weight single handedly to abstaining being the majority.
Strong guidance, goals and structure stem from good communication from the leaders.
The issue being taken here is, as you put it:
We, the minority, have been invited to participate in these chats and make a contribution.
We have been invited to view the conversation at best. Participation requires mutual respect.
Without equal weighting there is not mutual respect between the different vested groups.
To be clear, and fair, there was no requirement for Gnosis to airdrop safe users with tokens at all.
The crypto industry has made many people fat, lazy and expectant of airdrops when they’re purely a means to entice new customers no different than a samples tray in a market.
Gnosis safe airdropping tokens to users is akin to a Company going public and GIFTING shares to its clients as well as the paying investors and vested partners.
But they did.
Which means they’re beholden to those they’ve chosen to share power with to explain themselves to some degree. Regardless of whether they acted as individuals or on behalf of gnosis.
Do you honestly think there was ZERO internal discussion between the gnosis team members as to how to vote in sep2, if to vote at all?
Of course there was, and if we are to be ONE organization that is autonomous and decentralized we need to start communicating as one organization. Not as groups within groups.
Hence the reasonable request for information as to know the intentions of said voters better.
Considering the FTX fiasco one would think that EVERYONE HERE would be 100% for transparency to ensure the fidelity and longevity of the project.
The SAFE users are the clients of the SafeDAO
You don’t give your clients a gift horse with rotten teeth.
Not unless you’re actually trying to dissuade them from building trust in your business.
You’re absolutely right that SafeDAO as an organisation does not yet distribute information and knowledge effectively between its various stakeholder groups, including users, Guardians/delegates, investors and the Safe team. To me it seems we need to improve here on two fronts:
Spaces and channels to increase the visibility of information on each stakeholders’ goals and intentions
Norms and routines to increase the depth/richness of information on each stakeholders’ goals and intentions
For both 1) and 2), this forum is currently seen as the ‘source of truth’ where the governance process should take place exclusively so that anyone reading this forum can comprehend the governance lifecycle of a proposal. Specifically, phases 1 and 2 must take place here and conclude with a Snapshot proposal. Practically, large parts of the pre-phase 1 process are not systematically transparent yet where individuals or small groups often start brainstorming on a proposal outside this forum using other tools. Surely, that’s useful and appropriate for the brainstorming process – the question to me are just the conditions and timeline when the conversation is initiated on this forum. Nobody should be forced to publish an immature draft they don’t want to share yet, but we can tweak the conditions of phase 0 and phase 1.
For 1), spaces and channels, we currently have:
- a) interactive discussions as part of the official governance process
– this forum
- b) interactive discussions around governance but not part of the official governance process
– the Discord channel “governance” for non-essential, informal conversations
– SafeDAO community calls and roundups
- c) one-way communication and notifications on current issues in SafeDAO
– email notifications through this forum (enabled by default)
– the ‘safegovernance’-Twitter account tweeting four status updates on each SEP
– a Telegram group for Guardians to direct their attention to the forum
– In addition, I wonder whether a SafeDAO newsletter would be useful - pls let me know your thoughts.
For 2), norms and routines, there’s less structure yet:
- The nature of the forum should allow every governance participant to express their thoughts through comments in each SEP thread
- Some governance participants have been using Snapshot’s comment feature to explain their vote
- Guardians are encouraged to create a “delegate thread” in the ecosystem section to introduce themselves, present their goals and explain their intentions behind their votes (e.g., Luuk @LuukDAO, Bankless DAOplomats @daostewards, Stable Node @Matt_StableLab; others did so directly in the thread of each SEP)
- Investors: no structure yet, though @AccelXR-1kx took the initiative to explain 1kx’s rationale on their vote as a comment in SEP-3’s thread
- Team: no structure yet, except that since SEP-1 there’s still a policy in place encouraging team members not to vote while other stakeholder groups are still setting themselves up to widely participating in governance
- The above focuses on qualitative data which is most useful to understand goals and intentions. We also have (and need more) quantitative data analyses, such as Flipside Crypto’s @quasimatt’s dashboard or exploring Showkarma who are working on a proposal for SafeDAO.
- Questions on how and where we communicate have been brought up by @links before here and that thread may be a good place to continue the practicalities and specifics, but that conversation should be informed by this thread discussing the high-level objectives around transparency and governance participation in SafeDAO.
So, back to the question of how to more effectively distribute information across SafeDAO stakeholders & and how to make the intentions of each voter more explicit:
What’s your view on the state as summarised above, and what else would you like to see done?
i think what i meant was If they chose not to vote the results would have stayed the same.