How will the token value of $SAFE be determined?
@lukas kindly release allocation details of all GNO holders, stakers, lockers, users and many other eligible userās under GC! If not confusion and complain will not stop until every body know his faith/ results.
Secondly donāt try to delay airdrop distribution to GNO community same way you guys did when distributing $cow TO GNO lockers.
$Safe is a great project, with great strategy investors, guardians and developerās. Please act professional donāt be greedy when distributing $safe.
NB: kindly avoid whales play in this game
Maybe we need to address this as a separate official statement on twitter and discord because it is obvious reason many objected to the distribution plan.
I knew this was in plan right from the day you tweeted about airdrop plan but not many Gnosis users/lockers are aware
https://twitter.com/SchorLukas/status/1515428172363358215
Also, Plan to make SafeDAO determine distribution criteria for other chains from the 40% Treasury Fund should be emphasized with a twitter announcement.
This is just a suggestion though
So is being a multi-sig signer for a DAO that did txs before the time not count for this?
Guys, I am pretty sure Gnosis Beacon Chain Validators must be included to the airdrop. Itās unthinkable to find a more appropriate category of early supporters !
I hear the concerns about beacon chain, but as addressed above there are a significant portion of tokens left that can be delegated to beacon chain users , and I believe that is beyond the scope of this proposal.
I have been an early user of the Gnosis safe product, and use it across all supported chains. I hacked together an Avalanche GUI prior to it being supported officially as well. I will not get a large delegation given I bridged the bulk of my ETH held in my initial vault to L2 when the gas fees grew beyond 50$ per tx. None the less I feel this proposal is fair and applaud the team for implementing a vesting mechanism to the drop. I have been perplexed by the major airdrops that have not implemented this. It will greatly reduce initial volatility magnitude and duration in token value.
sounds good congratulations!
Were you not using the actual product alongside being a validator? 
When will the airdrop take place and be visible in our wallets?
Kind regards
Some more details on the token distribution and voting power in this post: SAFE Voting Power and Circulating Supply
yes i thinks thats only fair. People who are staking Gno in their vaults + use the Gnosis chain
What I donāt understand is why gnosis safe still had to rule out users that create safes on Ethereum even after ruling out those that created on other chains including gnosis chainā¦ The whole thing is built to enrich the rich.
If you claim to incentivise users and early supporters then do it properly, over 23000 safe owners on Ethereum including those who have zero record of Sybil where completely wiped out of the list of token recipients, with zero allocation. Why???
For instance the safe team didnāt give a damn about a potential Sybil that could use one address to create 40-50 safes or even more and deposit atleast 0.1 Eth in it to game the system but gave a damn about real users without Sybil activities that created one safe early during the period when gas was extremely at its peak. Their enthusiasm should be rewarded imo.
smartguy how would someone know what the criteria for the airdrop was beforehand?! sounds like a whole nothing-burger. all this complaining about rich get richer like why donāt you come up with a proposal since youāve got it down-packed.
I believe when SafeDAO was announced, a token was also announced. The snapshot date is the announcement date to prevent sybil attacks based on speculation of an airdrop to users.
Narrowing down the initial airdrop to the Ethereum network (being the oldest) is a smart move. Airdropping the token across multiple chains at launch would have a negative impact on the token, let alone the huge manpower to plan and coordinate that.
Some comments were made on the 2 txn criteria? on thing that might circumvent that requirement could be if u hold ETH in the safe? or had an token sent to the safe but never sent out?
thanks for the detailed explanation. Also I believe that mentioned ETH held per safe over time, so essentially you couldāve moved that ETH alongside performing 2 txs. Hope that helps bud
I second @exa256 and @calchulus request to have stable coin balances included as part of the calculation. A lot of projects keep their treasury in stables to avoid a repeat of the 2018 nightmare where falling ETH prices torpedoed the funding of many new startups.
We could choose something like the top ten USD-pegged stable coins by market cap](https://www.coingecko.com/en/categories/stablecoins) (this also has the benefit of not including algorithmic stables that have recently imploded).
I also agree that including non-stable ERC20s would be unworkable as many projects hold massive amounts of their own (illiquid) token in their treasury ā so Iām glad to see those funds are excluded.
In the interest of transparency: I am a core contributor for 1inch Network, but the views in this comment are my own.
Shi Khai & Emerson from LongHash Ventures here. Weāre investors in Safe, Safe Guardians, and active long-time users of the product.
Taking a step back, we believe a solid airdrop satisfies 3 aims:
Aim 1: Reward value creators that led to the success of today
We believe the current proposal has satisfied this aim. High-value assets stored and transacted on Safe has signalled confidence that built the network and Lindy effects that have made it the default multisig in Web3 today.
While we could include stables like USDC, USDT, and DAI, we agree with @lukas that it would open a Pandoraās box. i.e. what about FRAX, aUSDC, USDC-DAI LPs?
NFTs and other highly volatile tokens should also be excluded as there is no highly accurate way to value them.
Aim 2: Curate initial community & governance participants in a programmatic way
Any airdrop should also provide potential contributors with a strong vested & economic interest to contribute. These potential participants for Safe could include:
This proposal accounts for power users, and Safe power apps could be curated through the 5% Ecosystem allocation, but DAO experts with a strong track record of governance participation could make a significant impact on Safe in the long run.
Aim 3: Incentivise further contribution to the project DAO
Airdrops can never please everyone. To welcome contributors, however, Safe can open up a reserve amount for further manual retroactive grants. This provides an opportunity for people to make the case for how they have contributed and, importantly, how they will contribute (as per points 1 and 2 above). This can include L2s, as @tschubotz has pointed out.
These grants should be governed by a committee or subDAO, and also serves as the first small step towards decentralized governance for Safe.
In sum, we believe these changes could have a significant impact towards distributing governance power & incentivising contributions for a more actively involved DAO:
Hi,
about 3, if Is not transferable, why there is a vesting?
Thanks
May I ask, wouldnt it be more fair to divide the Safeās allocation of Tokens amongst the actual users, [The Signers] of the Transactions instead of just sending it all to the Safe address?
I represent 1 of [ about 15-30 ] individuals who were appointed the task of giving out grants in the form of the Audio Token as a part of the A.G.C. [Audio Grant Committee] to help fund Musicians wanting to run a Remix contest on the platform.
We have since then moved to the Solana Blockchain & are not using the same original Multi-Sig Safe we had created. The Safeās address is eligible for over 3,000 Tokens according to the Google Sheet file.
Tokens were allocated to SAFE directly probably for these reasons:
To give maximum security to the fund. We all use SAFE majorly for the higher security it offers. Why would the team distribute their governance token to a less secure wallets [signers] when a more secure wallet is available?!!
Signers to a SAFE can be as many as possible, the question of which among these signers to distribute to and/or the portion to distribute it will remain unsolved especially when a signer can be changed for various reasons best known to the SAFE owner.
An unwanted scenario is a sacked member for a violent conduct/embezzlement getting reward