[Discussion] Outcomes-based resource allocation framework (OBRA)

We’re excited to propose the first draft of SafeDAO’s resource allocation framework. We’ve made revisions to the resource allocation framework from the forum post by @pet3rpan-1kx and have integrated the discussion from there into this initial draft.

The ratification of the resource allocation framework is one of the milestones before voting on the transferability of the Safe token as outlined in SEP #3.

Quick overview:
The outcomes-based resource allocation framework (OBRA) utilizes a hierarchical governance structure to align vision, goals, strategies, and initiatives, ensuring effective and accountable resource allocation in SafeDAO.The goal of the resource allocation framework is to outline and set rules and procedures for the following topics:

  1. Strategic alignment: The framework ensures that every initiative and strategy directly contributes to achieving the DAO’s overarching goals and vision.
  2. Focused allocation: SafeDAO allocates resources only to initiatives that fall under pre-established strategies, enhancing focus and coherence, while retaining flexibility through wildcard options.
  3. Measurable metrics and attribution: Each strategy and initiative should be tied to specific key metrics, providing a clear method for assessing success and attributing outcomes.
  4. Assessment and review: SafeDAO employs a periodic review process aligned with the draft of the governance framework to assess the effectiveness of its funded initiatives, strategies and OBRA itself.
  5. Operating procedures: Structured approach for disbursing funds and success rewards

As a resource allocation framework, OBRA itself does not stipulate any strategies, these need to be voted on by a separate SEP. Similar to the governance framework, the resource allocation framework is not static, but can develop over time by introducing and amending strategies as well as changes to the resource allocation framework itself.

Open questions:
We welcome feedback on all aspects of the new resource allocation framework and we’re particularly interested in your thoughts on the following two questions:

  • Budgets: In the initial phase we believe that SafeDAO needs a budget given uncertainties around the overall treasury valuation. Read more about this topic here. Should SafeDAO adopt a budget per season and per strategies or solely per strategy? The seasonal budget would be determined during the governance amendment and review period. Strategy budgets would be agreed upon when suggesting a strategy.
  • Payout procedure: Should payouts be exclusively in USDC with SAFE as a success bonus, or entirely in SAFE? If we opt for the first alternative, SafeDAO would need to convert SAFE to USDC, which could happen either seasonally in advance, ad-hoc upon initiative approval, or as part of a broader treasury management strategy. The second alternative would delegate the conversion responsibility to the resource allocation recipient.

Next steps: Collaboration and feedback process
For a simpler feedback process, we are sharing the draft again as a Google Doc where everyone can add their comments and suggestions. Of course it is also possible to comment in this thread.

:phone: Community Calls
Additionally, we will conduct an open call to go over the resource allocation framework, address any questions, and gather your valuable input:

Tuesday, 5 September - 5pm GMT: Resource Allocation Framework Call



Title: [SEP X] Outcomes-based resource allocation framework (OBRA)
Authors: @pet3rpan-1kx, @Andre, @Christoph, @AccelXR-1kx (+ everyone else contributing and willing to get listed)


The proposal intends to provide a structured use of resources to ensure the most efficient and useful utilization of SafeDAO’s assets.

Proposal details

A. Hierarchy of governance for resource allocation
I. Strategies
II. Initiatives
B. Submission and review cycle
C. Voting thresholds
D. Compliance with relevant regulations
Appendix 1: Vision and goals
Appendix 2: Strategy proposal template
Appendix 3: Initiative proposal template

A. Hierarchy of governance for resource allocation

The Outcomes-Based Resource Allocation Model (OBRA) serves as a streamlined framework for DAOs to allocate resources effectively. The model creates a hierarchical relationship between vision, goals, strategies, and initiatives, ensuring that each action aligns with the DAO’s overarching objectives hereby minimizes the focus of governance of resource allocation to these core areas.

The vision is the overarching north star – the big picture of what the DAO aspires to become. Goals articulate the desired outcomes that align with this vision. Both vision and goals are stipulated in the SafeDAO constitution (see also Annex 1). Strategies provide the high-level approaches and key metrics to achieve those goals. Initiatives are specific actions or projects undertaken in line with a strategy to achieve the goals.

All strategies must be driving forward an existing DAO goal. All initiatives must be driving forward an existing DAO strategy.

Below is a visualization how vision, goals, strategies and initiatives relate to each other:

I. Strategies

Strategies outline the different approaches designed to achieve SafeDAO’s agreed-upon goals and vision, which are both codified in the constitution. Strategies provide the pathway to reach those goals, setting the direction rather than the destination and serving as the roadmap.


  • Focus on building more third-party safe modules to drive safe transaction volume, which would lead to more utility and thus greater TVL
  • Focus on institutional crypto adoption to drive TVL

There may be many valid strategies that the DAO can adopt to achieve its goals. SafeDAO should both carefully assess the validity of strategies while also focusing on experimenting and validating new strategies. The maturity of each strategy and progress being made on each front should determine the level of resources being allocated by SafeDAO towards initiatives under that particular strategy.

SafeDAO operates on seasons (see governance framework). Seasons should be allocated a budget, and within each season, specific strategies should be assigned their respective budgets. This approach is adopted because the overall SafeDAO treasury valuation for the initial seasons will be unclear. As SafeDAO matures, there may be a decision to not pre-allocate budgets, opting instead for a self-assessment approach by delegates and token holders.

One strategy may be a wildcard strategy. This strategy is distinct from the others in that it doesn’t follow a predefined path towards the DAO’s goals. Instead, it serves as a flexible and adaptable approach that can pivot based on changing circumstances, emerging opportunities, or innovative ideas. Due to its experimental and potentially riskier nature, it will be allocated a comparatively lower budget. During review periods, it’s essential to evaluate whether initiatives under this wildcard strategy can give rise to future strategies.

The strategy proposal template is in Appendix 2.

II. Initiatives

Initiatives are work proposals that are funded by SafeDAO. They are more traditionally thought of as more traditional ‘DAO proposals’.

Initiatives follow the following operating procedures:

  • Initiatives are funded in USDC and have a success reward for milestones in SAFE
  • All initiatives are funded by streamed payments (e.g. via a tool such as Superfluid or Sablier) unless the sum of funds is < $10,000, , in which case payment may be made through a series of scheduled payments or as otherwise agreed upon.
  • The proposer may request an initial lump sum to kickstart the initiative, but the lump sum may not exceed more than 20% of the total funding requested for the project unless the project timeline requires less than 3 month to complete
  • The SAFE success reward for the completion of milestones and the initiative itself will be locked up for 1 year, followed by a 1 year linear unlock via vesting contract. The success reward will be transferred at the end of the respective season where the milestones were reached or the initiative was completed.
  • More than 50% of the success reward needs to be allocated to the completion of the initiative.

The following illustration provides a visualization:

The initiative proposal template is in Appendix 3.

B. Submission and review cycle

SafeDAO operates on seasons lasting 20 weeks each consisting of 4 sprints of 5 weeks (see governance framework)

  • The first 3 sprints are the work period and have an operational focus
  • The 4th sprint is a review period in which the funded initiatives of Safe DAO will be reviewed by token holders and delegates
  • Initiatives that have been funded in the 3rd sprint will be subject to review in the next season.

Initiatives can only be proposed during the work period and not during the review period. New strategies must be proposed before the review period to be considered for approval.

During the review period, all initiatives with streams of funding are required to share progress updates and are subject to review. They do not need to re-apply for funding and drive a proposal through governance if their pre-approved funding extends beyond the prior work period. If SafeDAO wishes to terminate an initiative, the rest of their approved funding and SAFE rewards are returned to the DAO (all unspent funds and tokens for milestones that weren’t reached).

The DAO will also review existing approved strategies and may also decide to remove supported strategies. Initiatives that have been funded under a removed strategy do not automatically get terminated.

The following illustration provides a visualization:

It is expected that the first review cycles for SafeDAO will take a bit longer in practical reality but, over time, get to a better place of operational predictability. For the first review cycle that emerges of SafeDAO, we want to take extraordinary care to walk through the process carefully to educate all community members involved about the process and invest time with involving delegates.

For Season 1, the resource allocation framework will operate under a soft launch protocol. Recognizing the need for flexibility during the formative phase of SafeDAO, the Foundation retains the prerogative to deviate from the processes and tools laid out in A.II. Initiatives and B. Submission and review cycles if necessary to ensure an efficient resource allocation process. Any deviations will be communicated transparently and are subject to review in the review and governance amendment sprint (see governance framework). This exception is limited to Season 1 and is introduced to allow a smoother transition into the new resource allocation framework.

C. Voting thresholds

To encourage coordinated delegation parties to emerge in the process while discouraging low effort and signal participation, there is a quorum threshold to vote on the DAO’s core strategies, initiatives, and review cycles. ​​Below are the minimum number of Safe tokens required to meet the quorum:

D. Compliance with relevant regulations

All strategies and initiatives under the resource allocation framework must adhere to the constitution, the Safe Ecosystem Foundation’s deed, its relevant regulations, including those concerning investment and funding, and meet KYC requirements. The Safe Ecosystem Foundation, as a steward of SafeDAO, will guide and assess compliance with these principles.

Appendix 1: Vision and goals

Vision: Establish smart accounts as the default means for web3 interactions

Goal 1: Foster a vibrant ecosystem
SafeDAO benefits from a vibrant ecosystem built on shared components and standards. SafeDAO supports and empowers new and existing projects integrating with the Safe Protocol or initiatives supporting the usage of Safe Protocol.

Goal 2: Resilience via decentralization
The Safe Ecosystem shall be independent from any single entity. The Safe Ecosystem components, including governance, should be decentralized and permissionless.

Goal 3: Tokenize value
SAFE should represent the value of the Safe Ecosystem. Mechanisms should be created to link the growth of the Safe Ecosystem to the growth in utility of SAFE.

Appendix 2: Strategy proposal template

Changes to the proposal templates in Appendix 2 and 3 don’t require the SEP process. The Safe Ecosystem Foundation holds the authority to make these modifications or delegate the responsibility to a group of guardians or other SafeDAO participants, ensuring alignment with the framework’s objectives.

  • Which goals does the strategy look to drive progress in?
  • Which metrics and KPIs could initiatives under this strategy be measured against?
  • Outline the execution strategy or thesis
  • Detail around existing data or evidence to support this thesis
  • Detail around any risks associated with this strategy
  • If this strategy succeeds, what is the happy case?
  • If this strategy fails, what would be some reasons?
  • What are some example initiatives that would fall under this strategy
  • Assessment of the strategy’s maturity and if there is additional data that needs to be collected for the validation of this strategy
  • What budget should this strategy be allocated for

Appendix 3: Initiative proposal template

  • Which pre-approved strategy is this initiative driving forward?
  • Which metrics and KPIs will the initiative be measured against?
  • Who is the accountable initiative lead? (individual or organization)
  • What is the initiative about?
  • What risks does the initiative entail?
  • Timeline/roadmap of milestones for the initiative
  • What resources are being requested from SafeDAO in USDC?
  • Are there any resources requested from the Safe Ecosystem Foundation?
  • Are there any upfront funding this initiative needs at the beginning
  • The requested $SAFE success reward per work milestones and completion of initiative (vested token bonus for completion of work)

Purpose and Background

Decentralized governance / DAOs established a vision for the possibility of decentralized, neutral public goods owned by the public. However, after 3+ years of live data emerging around decentralized networks, decentralized coordination is still a work in progress.

During this period, 1kx has supported, invested, and participated in over 40+ DAOs and incubated/launched many ourselves. Through our experience, the case for decentralized resource allocation has a long way to go with finding a long-term viable model, with most DAOs experiencing major coordination failures such as the following:

Unclear consensus and clarity on core DAO activities and product strategy, leading to excessive spending and misallocation of community resources to misaligned initiatives.

Lack of oversight, feedback loops, and accountability of community initiatives leading to overhiring and working groups with unreasonably high burn rates and low output efficiency.

Inadequate contributor quality curation and accountability leading to a high amount of incompetent, low context individuals gaining senior leadership positions, leading to a further degradation of the community’s operating standard and contributor value extraction at the cost of the entire community.

Lack of data driven of decision making processes that lead to the governance capture of the community to contributors who brute force governance via bureaucratic lobbying.

Bloating on the DAO’s decisional surface area to a point where collective governance contributors no longer have the adequate context to govern effectively, leading to over delegation and concentration of social capital to a few select voices who are time rich but not necessarily those creating real impact for the DAO.

Rather than trying to address these problems incrementally, 1kx looks to propose a surface area reduced model for the governance of Safe DAO’s resource allocation known as ‘outcome-based resource allocation’ (OBRA).

Effects and Impact Analysis

What are the effects of the proposal? What are the pros and cons? What are risks?

OBRA introduces processes to the resource allocation which require some administrative efforts. When strategies and initiatives are being submitted it needs to be assesses how the strategies drive goals forward and how the initiatives drive strategies forward. During the review process the existing initiatives need to give status updates and these need to be reviewed.

Once the first review cycle emerges, there will be an open question on how to properly incentivize the review of this work, as this becomes an operational burden on token holders and delegates. It can be expected for professional delegates to emerge as a result of such incentives.

Alternative Solutions

What alternative solutions have been considered? Why have they been discarded?

One alternative solution would be to not have a resource allocation in place. This would most probably lead to misallocation of community resources due to misaligned initiatives. Another alternative solution would be to rely on working groups that set their own goals and strategies or decide on initiatives. While OBRA does not rely on working groups, in future iterations certain strategies could fall under the domain of working groups if agreed upon.

Technical Implementation

Does the implementation of the proposal require new code? How is the security of the code ensured?

The implementation requires the introduction of a streaming tool such as Sablier or Superfluid, a process how to payout and the adoption of vesting contracts for the rewards in Safe token.

Open Questions

Anything that needs to be cleared up before the community can make an informed decision?

[See comments in first post]


Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.


Thank you for the post 1kx and @Andre. I like the fact that the OBRA framework proposal for SafeDAO presents a structured approach to resource allocation and governance.


  • OBRA clarifies how strategies and initiatives should align with the DAO’s vision and goals, reducing the risk of misallocation of resources.
  • The proposal introduces a review cycle that ensures ongoing oversight of funded initiatives, fostering accountability.
  • The inclusion of a wildcard strategy allows for adaptability in response to changing circumstances or innovative ideas.
  • The proposal outlines the lock-up and vesting of success rewards in SAFE tokens, promoting long-term commitment to the DAO’s goals.


  • Ongoing reviews during the review period may become operationally burdensome for token holders and delegates, requiring a well thought out incentive structure even for the first iteration.
  • The proposal introduces a soft launch protocol for Season 1, allowing deviations from the outlined processes. This could lead to uncertainty and inconsistency in governance practices.
  • The KYC requirements are antithetical to the proposed vision and goals

Open Question:

  • Is the scope of the vision and goals stated in this proposal subject to iteration?
  • Are community members expected to come up with strategies and initiatives or will this be stewarded by the foundation?

While this proposal seems to make sense from a philosophical point of view, I am worried about its implementation from a tactical point of view.

Who is responsible for all of the administrative work related to this proposal? How much effort is involved to “run the machine” and how can the DAO afford to pay for it when tokens cannot be transferred?

What I see laid out here is asking the DAO to commit to an extremely opionated framework for resource allocation which has not been tested in the DAO. My feeing is it would take more than a single full-time person to maintain it, assuming delegates and DAO members step up to the plate to submit and review proposals. If that doesn’t happen, then this could easily turn into a situation where projects can grab SafeDAO resources without oversight. That’s a lot of risk to take.

Why not start with a smaller version of this and layer on more pieces as we go? We could start by running a round to solicit and fund strategies, and then let the people who submitted the strategies use their budget as they wish? Then we could add initiatives with review as another layer. This would both reduce the risk to SafeDAO on implementing this framework AND surface value-aligned contributors to actually contribute to the DAO.

This proposal also reminds me of a bunch of unanswered questions. It aims to make efficient use of SafeDAO’s resources but…do we even know what those resources are? Do those resources reside in a multisig, and if so, who are the signers?


Thanks @Andre for putting this together. I enjoyed the governance call earlier this week and there were some really good questions that helped clarify the path forward.

It actually reminded me of a similar efforts I kicked off in Genesis DAO back in 2019, with a similar motivation - in the absence of strategic goals and framework to define and execute towards them, any resource allocation is probably set to failure as there’s no way to evaluate it.

I personally think moving forward with the framework will be net positive for the safeDAO and allow more progress on further expansion. Further iterations should be embedded in the proposal as a continuous learning and improvement process for fine tune and adjsustments as the DAO and market conditions evolve.


I love the direction and first version of OBRA. I’ve been part of multiple DAOs over the past years (PrimeDAO/Balancer) that operated various strategies and initiatives, executed by diverse team / working groups, and have some thoughts I would like to share:

  • The importance of a group dedicated to strategic oversight and finance: As complexity grows with the number of active and proposed strategies and initiated, it often becomes hard for individuals to grasp the full scope of the developments, let alone decide how to adjust and properly budget. It’s critical to have a select group of dedicated and capable (likely paid role) contributors who provide strategic oversight and help consolidate different initiatives and insights to allow SAFE governance to vote better and operate more effectively. I don’t think the current delegates/guardians will have the bandwith to do this to the extent needed; they aren’t rewarded for these actions and are working on their own projects full-time.

  • Agreed on setting budgets; I believe having a healthy budget of USD/Stables is important and that the majority of payments should be in Stables - as this allows to attract and retain better talent (easier to invoice in Stables and build up a lasting team). Will leave some comments on the Tokenomics forum with ideas on how to source the first batch of USD. The oversight board should probably take on the role of Financial oversight, managing DAO finance and accounting and ensuring SafeDAO spending is in line with its strategy.

  • I like the operating structure, however, I wonder if 20-week cycles are the right timeframe. Sticking to regular Quarters of the month makes it much easier to track and account for cycles. Wondering if we need a 5-week Review period at all - maybe we could have two 5 week sprints, followed by a 2-week review period to remain within a Quarter (or 4 sprint,4 sprint ,3 sprint ,2 review). Operating in normal Quarters will also make evaluating performance in the future and communicating this much easier.


I agree with a lot of the feedback provided so far but even if you listen to none of it I think it’s definitely in good shape to start testing this framework in the wild. I love the broader architecture and some of the work around streaming payments and lockups is super smart. A few things I would add are that:

  • The Seasons feels a bit too much like you will get into a rolling strategy debate. Unbundling some of the funding decisions from the seasons could help to ensure that you aren’t constantly revisiting decisions too frequently.

  • I think the balance between execution (3 sprints) and review/debate (1 sprint) is a bit off. Giving 25% of time to review feels like too much time away from execution and shipping. I think by including some more dynamic mechanisms (like RFPs or seed grants) you could reduce the burden on OBRA’s core architecture and reduce the time needed for review

We have a similar architecture at Pocket Network and are really excited to learn from you guys. Shout out if we can share any of our learnings that might be helpful too


Hey everyone - Lindsey from Hedgey here. Want to start by saying that the OBRA framework seems like a great approach to managing how Safe distributes funds and keeps recipients accountable. Between how you @Andre are proposing distribution of funds and @Steven conversations around the utility of Safe it is awesome to see the DAO being super thoughtful in how it approaches the next phase.

I’m posting this to add a few comment regarding the streaming of funds, along with a few resources and additional ideas on how funds could be distributed and how I’d love for Hedgey to help with it.

For anyone who doesn’t know us, a quick background on Hedgey (and us being super users of Safe)
Hedgey creates onchain token streaming products and over the last two years has worked with Gitcoin, Celo, Collab.Land, Shapeshift, Index Coop, BanklessDAO and other great DAOs to give them access to vesting, lockups, and grants solution through our free, public goods solutions. We have over 6000 live streams/lockups and are audited by Consensys Diligence.

We are Safe App super users
We have five dedicated Safe Apps and ours users have deployed millions through them. We realized early on that 95%+ of our volume comes from Safe app users and have always built to create incredible Safe App experiences. I can’t stress enough that our products exist to serve onchain orgs that run on Safe.

How I think Hedgey’s grants payout platform can help with the distribution of funds within the OBRA framework:

  1. Using Hedgey Grants will allow Safe to issue payouts either streaming (every second) or periodic (weekly/bi weekly/monthly) and add on cliff periods should they choose. All payouts can be made revocable and easily managed by the DAO. I know the comment is currently around streams, which we can do, but there’s additional optionality should you choose to issue grants that distribute periodically.

  2. The recipients will have access custom dashboards to track and claim tokens by just connecting their wallet and clicking a button.

  3. The DAO will have access to a public dashboard dashboard where they can see the status of every active grant payout, creating transparency on what grants are active and what is being paid out. Attaching a demo link to an Arbitrum Demo public dashboard.

  4. The issuers will have a dashboard where they can easily track and manage active streams in one place and revoke them if needed.

Attaching a quick loom video I made for this showing the grants platform. You can access it all yourself at app.hedgey.finance.

Additional notes

  1. Hedgey is a totally free public good. There is no cost anywhere in using the platform.

  2. Hedgey is audited b y Consensys Diligence We are trusted by orgs like Gitcoin, Celo, Collab.Land and more with millions secured in our contracts.

Closing thoughts
I really want to help the DAO here. I’ve been starting to jump into some of the calls more and really want to be more involved since we are hardcore builders a Safe Apps. Being able to help Safe with streams and grants would be a massively cool thing for us and whether it’s streaming grants as mentioned, or some periodic distributions like bi-weekly or monthly we have the tools to help. Happy to share more and get involved in whatever way is useful to everyone - cheers!

1 Like

Gm gm,

As promised here are the notes from the Resource Allocation Framework call on September 5th. You can find notes from our calls in the Community Calls here.

A huge thanks to everyone who showed up and engaged in the conversation. We appreciate your inputs!


  • Andre
  • p3terpan
  • Lorny


  • Lior
  • Rickribera
  • Lajarre
  • Noturhandle
  • Jengojojo
  • Lorny
  • Steven
  • AntonM.eth
  • Popou
  • lazy coder
  • v3naru
  • Daytiva
  • DefiDebauchery
  • Nne

Discussion Points

  • Andre:
    • Referencing the Phase 0 doc for OBRA
    • Goal: Have structured approach, keep track of funding initiatives, align with vision, which funds have been paid out and are active and which are stopped
      • Make framework measurable to assess success of outcomes and tie into overall goals
    • Overview on OBRA:
      • Peter: Initial post not to create a rigid framework but to create a set of guard rails
      • OBRA is a way for us to define what we want to achieve
        • Ensure how we spend funding and measure and review how we spend funds
        • Meant to avoid unhappy cases we’ve seen in other DAOs
  • V3naru:
    • Wildcard strategy is interesting for flexibility
      • How do you plan to define and ensure Wildcard strategy not misused?
        • Andre: Wildcard = strategy that’s not pre-defined
          • Instead of turning initiatives away, the Wildcard strategy would entail a catch all bucket with lower budget attached to it if it’s outside the pre-defined strategies.
      • Re: metrics and strategies for them, for the 1st season who’s going to track the metrics and review the sprint? Will the stats/metrics be posted on the forum?
        • Andre: By default, SEF will manage this early on. This is not scalable though and shouldn’t stay only w/ the foundation. This can also eventually be delegated to other SafeDAO or Guardian members in future seasons and to reward them to allocate resources to this work in the future.
        • Who will drive forth strategies? How much comes from foundation and how much comes from SafeDAO?
          • More bottom-up approach
          • This is all to be worked out and developed over time
  • Peter:
    • Try to design all processes early on. We need to define this first and them figure out how to automate.
  • Andre: We can leverage templates for the Safe Grants program. The right tooling and who can support these resources is what needs to be defined in the first review cycle. A review cycle is 5 weeks long.
  • Q: What’s the process for OBRA implementation?
    • Andre: We have a soft launch of the governance framework. It gets voted on. Then goes into effect. Then the resource allocation is voted on. OBRA itself does not include any strategies right now, but implements the framework. Strategies need to be voted on in a separate SEP. In future seasons, strategies will only be voted on in 4th sprint (review and governance amendment period). For the soft launch of the first season we will be able to vote on strategies in the 1st sprint.
  • JengaJojo: Is there a max budget for each season?
    • Andre: That’s one of the q’s we put into the forum. For the beginning, there’s an argument to have a budget either on a seasonal and/or strategy level. Rn pre-transferability it’s not clear on how much safe treasury has of its own token. For the first few seasons, we need to devaluate if we have an approach similar to Safe Grants program —> have an allotment tied to a strategy. For OBRA this could mean e.g. a strategy for institutional adoption - where we want to assign x amount of that. If we max that out, we have to increase the budget in the future. A budget makes things easier.
  • JengaJojo: I’m pro - seasonal budget bc if we have an initiative which goes over budget for a season, then it’s already following an allocation base strategy. On the other hand, if each initiative is a proposal, and we have a seasonal max budget, then we may approve than the max budget. Approval is not an individual proposal but a ranked choice.
  • Lior:
    • Maybe better to have budget for more than one season. Gives confidence to market on what Safe DAO spends. Having something as a framework is good bc its a basis for discussion. Mostly this creates other streams and how you diversify token stability. You can change and update as terms change.
    • Andre: predictability can also come through an initiative being funded via a budget. If a project has a longer timeline to be completed, then there is no need to reapply. Safe token will also be allocated per milestones.
  • How long can initiatives run? Do we agree on this before hand?
    • Andre: Probably no need to agree on this beforehand. If an initiative is super long, e.g. goes over 5 years, then SafeDAO members would say to break this down into multiple parts and milestones or have them broken down into separate initiatives. E.g. someone building saas product for dao that renews yearly, this wouldn’t make sense to hardcode into framework that theres a max limit if an initiative is too long. Smallest unit is Sprint, then season and then we see how this aligns with said sprint and season.
  • JengaJojo:
    • It helps to have an equal periodic assessment vs something that is not periodic. If an initiative runs for 5 seasons and for 2 it is more successful, then the initiative that runs for 5 years is put into question. beneficial to limit inits and outcomes of inits. Can be renewed w outcomes.
    • A: Have review cycle every 15 weeks. If you show no results w/in 1 season or 2 seasons, this will raise questions in review cycle and may be subject for cancellation. 15 weeks which is more than a quarter, is enough to hit a milestone of any initiative.
  • Payouts
    • Should it be in stable coin + safe toke as reward? Or all in native token?
      • JengaJojo: Where does USDC come from?
        • Comes from converted Safe token. USDC payment means that there is a pre-requisite to sell off safe token for stable coin. USDC do not come from foundation. Whole OBRA is about Safe DAO funds, and not about SEF funds. USDC part would need a conversion event beforehand.
        • Andre: 3 ways to get USDC:
          • Scenario 1: Always convert when every initiative is funded. X amount of USDC converted for initiative. Sell Safe token. Convert safe token on ongoing basis.
          • Scenario 2: to have budget for a season, we convert that amount into USDC
          • Scenario 3: We have a broader SEP for treasury diversification.
            • X% of Safe DAO treasury we want in stable coin not ONLY to fund initiatives but also for risk assessment for treasury.
          • OR we just pay all out in Safe token
    • What about successful fundings only w native tokens?
      • Anton: OrangeDAO fund with native token, people less excite since it’s not liquid
        • If it’s larger and needs more time and effort. It’s hard to convince them that that’s the only form of payment. If it’s a smaller project like content based, reward in nat token
      • Lior: Propose to have person choose between flat USDC pay and a mix to give them a bonus if they chose to take lower amount and get premium in Safe. This could fit for long term exposure .
  • Missing items?
    • Anton: Can we review what procedures are in place that OBRA is replacing? What was that? and what’s considered a success and how measure it?
      • Andre: We’re not replacing anything. This is the first time we’re having a resource allocation framework being put in place
  • Nneoma: Is there a body set up for Oversight?
    • Andre: That’s part of the review and operations. Review is DAO wide. Goal is to be DAO sourced.
    • Nneoma: Suggestion - Agree, only spin up working groups as needed and not before and then implement them.


Join us next Tuesday for our 2nd Governance call! ICYM our first call discussing the Resource Allocation Framework, join us for the second round of discussions!

  • :sunglasses: What: Resource Allocation Framework Discussion
  • :round_pushpin: Where: Discord in the #governance-discussions channel
  • :clock1: When: Tuesday, September 26th at 19:00 CET

Add the Discord event to your calendar here

Don’t forget to subscribe to the Safe Public Events Calendar so you don’t miss out on any exciting events.


:bell: Reminder :bell:
Join us TODAY for our 2nd Governance call! ICYM our first call discussing the Resource Allocation Framework, join us for the second round of discussions!

  • :sunglasses: What: Resource Allocation Framework Discussion
  • :round_pushpin: Where: Discord in the #governance-discussions channel
  • :clock1: When: Tuesday, September 26th at 19:00 CET

Add the Discord event to your calendar here


Thanks to everyone who joined the call! I’ll be posting notes as a recap in the next couple of days.


Thanks for hosting Andre! Glad I was able to join. Looking forward to brainstorm further.


This outcomes-based resource allocation framework (OBRA) does a good job of outlining the project lifecycles for SafeDAO. It also provides clear examples to illustrate processes by using realistic situations that may arise. Great work @Andre and everyone else who contributed!


Similar to @jengajojo, @links, and @LuukDAO’s notes above, my biggest question is around operations. I estimate Andre will be leading many of the efforts outlined on OBRA.

  • Will implementing OBRA for each season require more than just Andre’s full-time support, e.g. Similar to the Safe grants program council comprising of compensating delegates, guardians, and other ecosystem members?
  • If so, I imagine there will likely be a similar voting process for the SafeDAO treasury council, aka masters of coin council (MOCC)?


Budget per season

This seems like a good strategy because it allows for more frequent adjustments based on market volatility and assessing the top Safe ecosystem opportunities

Budget per strategy

Allocating assets per strategy is a good process because it helps assess and prioritize the current state of Safe ecosystem opportunities. Adhering to each strategy allocation seems like it can be less strict than the budget per seasons.

For example, in the Safe grants program (SGP), allocations were set per build, growth, govern, and research categories. As part of the council we used these preset goals as strong guidelines for allocating assets. However, ultimately some categories received more or less based on the number of strong proposals in each category.



This is a good balance of simplicity and flexibility.

  • USDC with SAFE as a success bonus
  • Convert the amount budgeted for a season into USDC

This is simple because the amount of USDC planned for a season being converted from SAFE tokens prior to the season start reduces uncertainty of teams participating in the season when the price of SAFE tokens fluctuates greatly during a season.

There is flexibility in the bonus component of receiving SAFE based on the retroactive project performance because a team may decide to hold the SAFE tokens if they believe in it’s value increasing.

Upfront compensation

II. Initiatives

20% upfront payment seems high to me.

I’m not familiar with other DAOs compensation practices so perhaps this is normal…

The proposer may request an initial lump sum to kickstart the initiative, but the lump sum may not exceed more than 20% of the total funding requested for the project unless the project timeline requires less than 3 month to complete

Appendix 1: Vision and goals

I would consider rephrasing “web3” to make this more descriptive.

Potentially “Vision: Establish smart accounts as the default means for digital account ownership.”

“web3” may lead people not familiar with crypto to believe that that smart accounts are only for financial use cases, rather than the full range of digital ownership of identification, messaging, social accounts, gaming, etc.

Appendix 3: Initiative proposal template

Purpose and Background

It would be useful to remind readers 1kx is an author/contributor to this proposal for context.

Potentially “During this period, 1kx, a major contributor towards this proposal, has supported, invested…”


Thanks for doing this write-up @adamhurwitz.eth

I feel that the proposed Vision is quite technical, which has pros and cons.

If we aim to expand beyond the existing Web 3.0 tech ecosystem and towards mass / institutional adoption, I would imagine leaning more toward something like:

“Realize the full potential of digital coordination through smart accounts.”

1 Like

What could be the next steps related to this proposal?

Just editing the proposal to reflect the feedback we got and then we‘ll organize another governance call. We’re also kicking off soon the process to get feedback on the strategy SEP to align on which strategies we want to fund.


Nice! Have really enjoyed seeing the OBRA conversations. Looking forward to the next call on it


@pet3rpan-1kx could you please check your DM


Hi, I’m DAODude from DAOAsia here.
That’s an amazing discussion, and I totally agree that OBRA will definitely play a key role in the future of the allocation for the budget and Safe protocol itself.
I’m curious about the difference between the Optimism’s RetroPGF and Arbitrum’s, especially for the approach of the issues and the way of measuring the deliverables for the allocated budgets.