Inclusion of L2 Users in SafeDAO Governance

  • Title: Inclusion of L2 Users in SafeDAO Governance
  • Author: neobucks
  • Created: 2023-03-23


This proposal suggests the inclusion of L2 users in SafeDAO governance. It argues that L2 users have been ignored by the community and excluded from previous decision-making processes, which has resulted in the loss of potential supporters and voters. The proposal aims to correct this by distributing SAFE tokens to L2 users and allowing them to participate in governance.

Proposal Details

Well-known L2 includes: polygon, optimism, arbitrum.

Purpose and Background: The purpose of this proposal is to address the exclusion of L2 users from SafeDAO’s governance process.

L2 users are loyal users of SAFE, and many of them choose to use L2 because of high gas fees etc.

However, they have been left out of decisions that affect their use of the platform.

The current distribution of SAFE tokens only includes mainnet users, which excludes 3/5 of the total user base(according to unclaimed SAFE token).

This is a very obvious signal, perhaps excluding the many loyal users of SAFE.

This proposal aims to correct this by including L2 users in governance and distributing SAFE tokens to them.

Because the users who participated in receiving SAFE are all beneficiaries, they therefore support proposal which giving themselves the unclaimed SAFE rewards.

L2 like arbitrum drop ARB token to SAFE dao, while arbitrum users are excluded, Isn’t this very ironic?

Effects and Impact Analysis

The main effect of this proposal would be the inclusion of a larger user base in SafeDAO’s governance process.

This would increase the diversity of perspectives and potentially result in more informed decision-making.

Additionally, it would incentivize L2 users to continue using the platform and contribute to the community.

However, there are also potential risks associated with this proposal, such as centralizing voting rights among certain groups of users. It is important to consider these risks carefully and implement measures to prevent them.

Alternative Solutions

One alternative would be to distribute SAFE tokens to all users, regardless of whether they use L1 or L2. This will make the voting rights more decentralized and attract more users.

Technical Implementation

The implementation of this proposal would require a simple code to be written to distribute SAFE tokens to L2 users.

Open Questions

The proportion of unclaimed SAFE tokens is 3/5.
If the proposal to “distribute unclaimed SAFE tokens to users who have claimed them” is supported, will it lead to more centralized voting power and exclude more users?

In conclusion, this proposal suggests the inclusion of L2 users in SafeDAO’s governance process by distributing SAFE tokens to them.

By doing so, SafeDAO can increase the diversity of perspectives and incentivize L2 users to contribute to the community.


For reference, these Dune dashboards created by @tschubotz will be useful to analyse activity across chains:

“There are many users in l2, and I believe that the safety team was clearly aware of this when they made air drop distribution, so they ultimately chose users on the main Ethereum network, as this is the true contributor. There is no doubt that safety users are definitely Ethereum users. I believe that for the sake of your financial security, you will definitely choose to store assets on the main Ethereum network instead of other chains, and most users of l2 or other side chains are air drop farmers.”, “There should be no rewards. I firmly oppose rewards for l2 and other side chains.”.


Ethereum users have received airdrops. Does that mean you can say L2 users are all drop farmers since you’re not an L2 user?

Please be wary of this person. qianwan_lv.
According to his reply thread.
qianwan_lv activity
He has a high probability speculator(maybe a succeed airdrop hunter).
He only concerned about unlocking and circulating tokens as soon as possible , and redistributing unclaimed token to himself again, and even reward users like him.

According to the current voting situation of sep5 in the snapshot, we are very likely to have 16m tokens for allocation B, which provides the possibility of airdropping to L2 users (this does not mean that all will be used for L2 airdrops).

I support airdrops for other chains, but obviously this proposal is incomplete. If you wish to airdrop L2, it is your responsibility to lay out airdrop criteria that are convincing to community members and explain why such criteria exclude airdrop farmers as much as possible.

1 Like

Please don’t be jealous that I got a safe airdrop because I created a safe and used it on the main Ethereum website very early. The airdrop I got is deserved and I am actively involved in the construction of the safedao community, because I really care about the future value of safe tokens and believe that everyone who owns safe airdrops is the same.

“If you are different, then you should have a safe airdrop. Try it out if you are unwilling to pay for it, don’t appreciate the kindness of others, don’t participate in the activity and discussion of the forum, but beg for it like a beggar. It’s really ridiculous!”!


Since there are very many airdrop hunters within L2 users, and at the same time there are some technical difficulties in setting proper airdrop thresholds for multiple L2 chains, is there a possibility to take a new snapshot(eg Mar.29 2023) on the Ethereum,the multisig wallet created and interacted will receive the unredeemed $SAFE tokens during Aug.18 2022 to this day?

I wholeheartedly agree with including non-Eth Safe users in governance, and also strongly agree that much more stringent guidelines should be created for the inclusion of these addresses.

I could see two theories for a proper snapshot:
A) dated when SEP-5 was created. No chains were brought online between December and now, so that shouldn’t be a problem. – or
B) dated when SEP-6(?) is created, but also based on activity between the December claim date and the snapshot date.

The ultimate point is that simply setting up a Safe, especially on a low-cost L2, should not be eligible for negligible, if not zero tokens.

But instead, allocations should be weighted against BOTH holdings and activity. In other threads, folks have mentioned using Safe as a kind of cold wallet, which is absolutely a valid use case, but should be weighted by dollar amounts (e.g. “cold storage” of $10 worth of tokens is an airdrop hunter).

Additionally, users that actually use the Safe should have a compounded weighting. Many teams use Safe as their own governance platform, not just for Treasuries, but to achieve consensus on their own platform changes. This should be rewarded.

I understand that this introduces complexities, but it’s the only way to reward real, actual users of Safe and simultaneously discourage the ‘hunters’ from simply trying to siphon funds from the DAO.

1 Like

The biggest question is if L2 is included, which types of tokens need to be counted in the multisig wallets?

How does this proposal relate to SEP#5?

I fully agree with you that L2 users should be included in governance to decentralize the community and make it more resilient. Considering that we have just discussed this topic extensively in SEP5, I would appreciate if we could not reopen the discussion on this topic.

Or does this proposal intend to address the left-over allocation from the airdrop, earmarked for Option B in the vote of SEP5? If that is the case i am happy to continue the discussion here where it left off in SEP5. If so, can you please flag it accordingly in the proposal that it results from a previous DAO decision? Would help all new members coming in.

@neobucks, what’s your take here? Would you like to take the lead in continuing this proposal as a follow-up to [SEP #5] Redistributing Unredeemed Tokens From User Airdrop Allocation or should someone else create a separate proposal?

This proposal is a great start. It does need a lot more refinement, though.

For example, this is the ‘technical implementation’ as it stands. This needs a lot more detail on tokenomics and processes, e.g. who deploys the token to L2s, with how much supply, which bridges are there or who sets them up, how is SAFE on these L2 connected to the mainnet SAFE and our Snapshot voting strategies, etc.


I would have to disagree. We have multiple safe set up on both ethereum & BSC to receive donations and payments from members wayyyyyy before the airdrop was even a thing, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to only have safes on L2s.

Eth gas is crazy expensive, it cost 60+ bucks to created ONE of our main safe on eth, and for smaller teams it is simply not worth it to spend at times hundreds of dollars in gas to setup multiple safes on eth mainnet, especially in cases like donation funds wallets where cost needs to be minimized for both the receiver and sender(remember, the sender bares the cost too to send funds on eth) while preserving safety and transparency. In cases like these, L2s are their best choice, not only is transparency preserved, allowing easy public audits, senders only have to pay cents for gas, and reduces A LOT of costs when transferring funds for operations or distribution. Your argument about users on L2s being mostly airdrop farmers is based on biased opinion and is simply not true.

It’s like the government saying crypto is mostly used by criminals when 90% of the transactions are just hedge funds moving their crypto… :slight_smile:

Them being concerned about token unlock is not unreasonable. safeDAO is one of the slowest moving “active DAO” that I’ve ever come across. Progress needs to be made fast, else people will grow tired and stop participating, especially when there is NO incentive to improve the protocol. The whole point of a DAO token is to instill monetary value to the project and allow entry for others who want to participate.

While I agree we should not enable transferability when the distribution of tokens haven’t even been agreed on yet, this “speculator witch-hunting” will only slow progress, create divide within participants who simply want to improve the protocol, and allowing the VCs with majority vote to control the outcome, as demonstrated in the past 5 SEPs.


I don’t think it should include L2 users in the token redistribution.
The reasons are as follows:

  1. There are much more airdrop hunters of L2 users, this is a fact, especially after last airdrop, safeDAO announced that it will airdrop for L2 users in the future, which further stimulates the behavior of airdrop hunters;
  2. The number of tokens redistributed this time is relatively small, only part of 16 million. These tokens need to be distributed as fairly as possible to
    so many L2 users. Firstly, the airdrop rules may be very controversial, and secondly, the difficulty of implementation is also very difficult. Thirdly, even if it is really allocated, it cannot solve the current situation of community governance.
    On the contrary, it will lead to a more extreme proportion of voting rights of community users;
  3. My point of view is that Ethereum users should be re-snapshotted, compared with L2 users, they may be more real and loyal users.