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
What is this?
Why is the creation date cut off here, makes no sense. The creation date should be the creation date of the SAFE itself until THIS proposal as a cut off. This way you are making it way more disproportionate, and instead that list of “inactive” addresses, will significantly come down as actually they may not be inactive but may just have had small balances, which itself, is viable and much more proportionate.
with safes as (
where creation_time < ‘2022-02-09’ – Date of GIP29
order by creation_time
Cut off should be the date of this Proposal issued.
Amazing, congratulations on taking these steps forward. How do we go about claiming?
Unfortunately, there is obvious disregard for users in this proposal. for many teams, people have paid costs and hard to participate in safes, but they are completely ignored in the proposal.
It is suggested that the proposal be further amended to put the multiple signers of the safe together, especially the early users.
It is not possible to create a perfect airdrop. Next to not being able to maximise on all possible goals of an airdrop (i.e. conflicting goals), there is also just the balance between doing a sophisticiated aridrop that covers all possible cases vs. doing something that is also executable. The above approach therefore is about making an initial airdrop as a “minimum viable airdrop” and solve the future distribution via the very substantial community treasuries.
Why start with Ethereum?
Ethereum mainnet has been the only chain for Gnosis Safe in the first 3 years of operations and is still by far the most critical network when it comes to key metrics. Having an airdrop simultaneously on 12 different networks would be a monster to coordinate and would probably result in many more unwanted outcomes.
This doesn’t mean that there will not be any future airdrops to activate communities on other networks. It’s just that this is obviously the one to start with.
Gnosis Dao, Gnosis Safe, Gnosis Chain.
Whatever about the complexities of airdropping on 12 chains, including Gnosis Chain in the user distribution should be the bare minimum given Gnosis Dao has funded Safe team since it’s inception.
Though being early should also be rewarded - for example by a multiplier.
On the topic of Gnosis Chain and why it is not included in this airdrop
There is a designated GnsosiDAO<>SafeDAO treasury which is earmarked for intiiatives benefiting both communities such as rewarding Safe activity on Gnosis Chain. This part of the distribution alone makes up 5% of the total SAFE supply so is as big as the entire user airdrop.
Additionally, GnosisDAO directly gets a 15% share (3x as big as the user airdrop!) which can be further used to create incentives on Gnosis Chain.
Y’all just had to complain (obv it can’t be perfect) but no let’s find something to complain about, now it’s getting postponed, nice job.
Continuing the discussion from Proposal: SAFE distribution for users:
I do agree as a former Legacy Multisig product user those were likely of the rather crucial early users that should be eligible to this distribution, given time-factor and adoption support.
Since it’s a separate set of contracts however and nowadays the interface is not even active either, I do get Lukas’ point on the debate.
I would go with a tranche of the distribution to be for old legacy multisig users that would have a timeframe for claim-ability. Once expired, those tokens would be circled back to treasury for example. In this way you’re only rewarding old users from the legacy product that prove to be indeed still active within the ecosystem without the loss of distribution to ‘dead’ participants.
PS: Good to see you around here!
Good to see you here around again
Please take into consideration how many alts will “voice” their opinion to have the outcome work further in their favor, I can simply create an alt and join the convo with a conflicting pov.
Which was earned by GnosisDAO funding Gnosis Safe since it’s inception, right?
Excluding GC users from the user distribution and then saying GnosisDAO can fund them if they want to is just shirking responsibility and suggesting the DAO water down it’s allocation (which it has more than earned) to make up for shortcoming of the Safe team.
Long time GNO holders should be able to expect more from their own contributors than this.