a couple of thoughts on the proposal. Full disclosure: I’m an owner/co-signers of Safes that have deployed multiple proxies and use them actively for development. I will address a few points that have been already brought up:
- concerns for ETH as the only weighted factor
This is the one point I would amend for this proposal as a large number of development teams utilize stable coin to fund their treasury, not ETH. Although ETH balances maybe crucial to have for a regular multisig, it pales in comparison to be as critical as 1) stable coins holdings 2) native token within a treasury. 2) is of course impossible to quantify, which leaves stable coins as optimal shelling point for the distribution. My request for amendment would be to include both
ETH, WETH and stable coins holdings over time
- concerns on picking Ethereum network users > other chains
Risk model for users on non-Ethereum chains is not comparable to the risk early users took by deploying assets through Safe (and prev: Gnosis Multisig) on Ethereum. I believe active users reward distribution should have causal relationship to a) risks incurred to the users of the early product b) how important the initial $$$ drives subsequent adoption. Let’s also be clear that, with the absence of the early adoption for the original Multisig on Ethereum- we would not have gotten here.
To give an example of what early risks looks like for the first few Safe users, note that the big Parity wallet hack would have been fresh in recent memory and that industry standards for teams would have been to use an institutional solution like custodial wallets.
transaction fees is another contributing factor on top of risks, really active users should at least expect amount quantifiable as kick back for usage on a higher gas cost L1
- Lack of incentives for future developments on other chains
I don’t think this is a good argument given that airdrops are rarely proven to drive the product adoption after the fact. Beyond the scope of this distribution, I think it’s a better fit for initiatives like Safe Guardians and subsequent ecosystem allocation to fund future application developments.
Ultimately, IMHO the the distribution criteria satisfies the established goals. My only request for change would be a point to consider stable coins held > time as a factor for weighted allocation.
Does this data include Safe Guardian’s part?
Since GnosisSafe spawned from gnosis, I think that people who committed to lock their GNO token for 1 year to support the project instead of staking should get an airdrop, but should be less than the early GnosisSafe users
An initial distribution based on mainnet seems to focus on longer-term users, while the resources have been set up to allow the community to create proposals that incentivize L2s. As @tschubotz mentioned, there is 40% of SAFE supply in the SafeDAO treasury that can be allocated with proposals to these other L2 Safe chains.
Including stablecoins is a valid point as the determined value is straightforward and many teams have held a large portion of reserves in stables learning from the '17/18 market cycle. A large amount of the NFT market seems manipulable. If NFTs were considered as part of the value it might make sense to choose an allow-list of top NFT collections based on a set of metrics. If there are oracles that can derive the value from multiple reliable exchanges, that could be used for price, or using OpenSea prices.
Major Ethereum staking tokens such as Rocket Pool’s $rETH and Lido’s $stETH also seem like important additions to the consideration of the airdrop. These staking protocols have provided key roles in moving Ethereum’s Beacon Chain forward.
It seems like a good idea to see a future proposal to reward Gnosis Chain users.
It doesn’t seem so as the topic title is SAFE distribution for *users*.
It would be good to receive confirmation from the Gnosis team on this.
Gonna jump to some of the main concerns rather than address the whole proposal.
Adding an allocation based on eth value over time is fair to some extent. Those that might not deal with eth but hold a significant amount of value would fall through the cracks. If the purpose of this allocation is to reward trust based on the value held, perhaps a better method would be to reward activity. for example, the average time between transactions? average no. of transactions within a month?
The gas spent multiplier is a nice thing to have but it’s basically reimbursing operational costs that we were prepared to spend. It is however a good indicator to the above comment in order to calculate activity.
so, using eth balances to calculate a portion of allocations has its pros and cons. I feel like there are more cons and it should be reconsidered.
Yes, this is only for the user distribution. Guardians will learn about their allocation at a later point.
Yep, also, there are two community treasuries that directly relate to GnosisDAO/Gnosis Chain with the 15% GnosisDAO allocation and the 5% joint treasury. The latter could exactly be used to support initiatives that benefit both projects (Safe and Gnosis Chain) such as an additional airdrop for Safe users on Gnosis Chain. This is really just the beginning of the distribution, I’ll expect much more to come once governance is set up.
The issue is about where to exactly draw the line. @tschubotz s proposal limits to just ETH as this is the native asset. But if you start adding more it already opens pandoras box. If you add DAI, why not USDC and then USDT, but what about aDAI? or the DAI that is controlled by the SAFE but in a Uniswap LP position? People would always argue that the step to the next asset in line is marginal.
There should be airdrops for GNO holders, but this is a discussion to be had on forum.gnosis.io
We spend a lot of time in 2019/2020 pushing legacy Gnosis Multisig users to switch to Gnosis Safe, so most of them are anyways early adopters of Safe. Also it doesn’t really make sense to distribute to wallets where we do not even provide a user interface anymore or actively maintain the codebase.
Agreed, this is likely the same case for adding NFTs which I’d consider more subjective than stablecoins.
Only top collections could be selected. However, defining the cutoff of collections to include in order to avoid low-quality price manipulated projects is subjective. The upside of including NFTs in some form is growing Safe’s future adoption in the NFT communities.
ETH staking protocols
For Ethereum staking protocols, it seems like there could be a more clear cutoff, e.g., $rETH and $stETH. These protocols have been important in moving Ethereum towards The Merge. Staking protocols have increased Ethereum adoption, brought awareness and education to The Merge, and likely have had an impact on stabilizing ETH price.
“It is empowering to own a part of the product they use.” - @tschubotz
: Safe is a core component of crypto and it’s awesome to have the opportunity to be a part of its ownership. It would be useful and interesting to study successful businesses that have co-op models from the past.
What are the next steps: How long will the Safe team and community review feedback and make potential adjustments?
Are there rough target time frames for the Safe users and SafeDAO Guardians distribution to take place?
Is it possible to distribute $SAFE tokens before value is assigned to it? This could potentially have a major tax benefit (Not tax advice) in that the value gained from the tokens received might be treated as a capital asset rather than income in jurisdictions like the U.S.
Good questions, but a bit hard to answer.
- I guess we’ll let the dust settle and then assess, also based on the feedback in this forum, where the proposal might have to be adjusted.
- Depends on 1), as iterations on this proposal would of course postpone the actual distribution
- The token will be distributed as a non-transferable token, not completely sure about all the ways there could still be “value assigned to it” though and how different jurisdictions would treat such token distribution.
Thanks for the clarity!
- My point is on the value of the token at the time it is received by the user.
If $SAFE is distributed and the current value is 0 USD/SAFE there is theoretically no income to be taxed. After distribution as the value of $SAFE increases, any gains sold by the user would potentially be treated as capital gains sales.
I don’t agree with the proposal I think gnosis chain users should not be excluded from gnosis safe airdrop. Including users with only 2 Mainnet tx and excluding gnosis chain users with 20-50 tx plus that used gnosis safe over gnosis chain ( the name already tells us the story ) doesn’t make any sense . You excluded many legit users that way and prob included people that games the airdrop since many farmers only do 1-5 tx over a short period of time . Myself I have 10 k in my safe and a big amount of tx and got excluded and there are many smaller daos using the safe since a lot of time and they all got excluded . Gnosis safe should include gnosis chain users
My voice here is not to speak on behalf of my organization, but as someone that hopes to see greater usage of Safes across the board for the safety and security of more users around the world, but I use my data as a team that is on multiple chains to illustrate that there are many other teams which will not be addressed by this proposal as is because the way it is structured.
Your point on optimism is still flawed because you are still only willing to view ETH as the only asset to track. Optimism also does not have many stablecoins, which exa above already discussed. A quick check of defillama shows that Optimism only has the 9th highest defi TVL All Chains TVL - DefiLlama
But that the point is that long term even today < 60% of defi TVL is on ETH.
On Ethereum alone, theres 90B of stablecoins and 37B deposited in defi according to defi llama. I think it’s silly to assume that ETH is the only value you want to focus on when ETH itself has seen so much adoption from the rise of stablecoins.
There’s still a lot of markets to cover and I would hate to see an airdrop that doesnt set forth the idea that safe will reward other chains ends up opening the door for other retroactive airdrops that focus on non-ETH worlds and non-ETH assets.
Let me share an example: so a project team that told other partners or other investors to “please send these funds to my gnosis safe” - and did plenty of marketing for safes - each and every one of them will receive nothing as recipients of transactions rather than senders. Further, a lot of teams set up safes on multiple chains so that investors or supporters could contribute on different chains. Many investors we see, use centralized exchanges with free withdrawals if asked to send funds to a eth-mainnet multisig rather than a cheap chain environment.
Again, I’m not asking to weight every transaction to be the same across everychain, but I do believe that it seems very maximalist to only retroactively reward one chain if safe is a truly multichain product.
And I agree 100% with exa’s point on stablecoins, and I do think that it is not a whole lot of work to grab a finite list of accepted stablecoins or even the wrapped stablecoins etc. as Lukas mentioned about aTokens or yield bearing LP assets, but completely ignoring them but then setting this as the example with the largest % of the retro distribution, seems like a suboptimal way to reward holders.
I do feel that some of you guys feel like I’m saying this b/c I don’t feel our airdrop amount is enough, that is far from the case - in fact, I suspect myself and others will receive smaller airdrops if weight is given to stablecoins or other chains b/c there simply are even more chains and eligible users who can earn something from this distribution. It feels a bit defensive and ad hominem to assume that every user who bothers to speak in this forum is just self-interested when in very clear logic, opening the pie to potentially way more users more chains and assets will actually divide our potential self-profits even more. I just want to see whats best for the longevity for the safe ecosystem.
I think we should re-vote for the date 17.08.2022 it would be fair. You’re cutting off a huge chunk of users