As the market returns for a new cycle, there is only 1 milestone left before voting enabling SAFE token transferability.
I have a consideration if the SEP on token utility has been ratified, would it continue to use the circulation proposal of SEP #2 and directly enter the voting stage, or it need to reopen a new proposal and wait for a month for voting?
If it is the second case, is it possible to issue a proposal to discuss enabling transferability when Milestone E is proposed and enter the voting process directly after Milestone E is ratified?
Benefit：This can also echo the expectations of the Safe ecosystem and community for unlocking transferability and reduce one-month sprint wait to ensure consistency and predictability.
I think that the token transferability might be voted on during the fourth sprint of the season because that is set aside specifically for governance proposals. Anyone concur?
I think it will be right if start preparing and discussing.
These milestones are blocking for snapshot voting only.
They do not block the discussion, preliminary preparation, pre-approval of the proposal and so on. Blocked only voting in snapshot.
But, you’re right, the current rules probably (correct if I’m wrong) don’t allow us to transfer it to the snapshot voting at the same time… although, this “batch” seems very logical.
I think that the token transferability might be voted on during the fourth sprint of the season because that is set aside specifically for governance proposals. Anyone concur?
I agree with this approach. (to my understanding) Budget was allocated to work on the utility of the SAFE token and this work should be given sufficient time to be undertaken prior to the unlocking event.
@Andre@adamhurwitz.eth I also have a doubt about the voting period for transferability could you confirm if it is scheduled for season 1 sprint 4 ?
Regards,
I don’t have any “inside” insight on this. Based on the multiple successful SEPs passed in the last few months and there being 1 milestone proposal left, SAFE token utility, I would estimate there will be a vote for token transferability late Q1 or early Q2 this year. It could also be longer if the community takes longer to build a specific and actionable plan for token utility.
What is the deal with making this as confusion as possible? just wondering why we can’t layout exact dates and go by the calendar of the year. Fourth week of January as an example. Instead of season 1 sprint 4. JFC.
According to Sec. D. II. Governance cycles of our governance framework, the SafeDAO’s proposal process works in seasons and sprints to consolidate the decision making process. You can find the exact dates in the governance calendar.
As everyone here correctly states the ratification of the token utility framework is outstanding. In the sprint following the ratification of the token utility framework a proposal could be put forward to vote on the token transferability as the ratification is a dependency for it according to SEP #3. The latest update on the milestones can always be found in this page.
–
I know that some of you would like to give feedback on the token utility framework as soon as possible, which is great! And we will be able to share a draft soon. We want to make sure we have a good basis the token utility discussion.
Interesting considerations. Thanks for sharing everyone.
Second your view @adamhurwitz.eth@Andre - our current focus should be on getting token utility right and enabling community discussions related to this. Looking forward to the next update and thanks for all the great brainwork that already went into this on the forum and in community calls
As we’ve seen with other token transferability/launch events, token utility is extremely important, esp. getting it ready for launch. Imo it is wiser to refine our approach rather than rushing out with something that’s not fully vetted. I’m happy to share more insights on comparable cases.
Utility comes from the protocols that are built on top of the safe token.
But what would attract builders to deploy their contracts on top of the safe token?
Builders require incentives.
Incentives come from participation.
The more participation, the more incentives for builders.
Liquidity pools are a good example.
The more daily volume (participation), the more fees LP’s earn.
When it comes to protocols built on top of the safe token, builders would need to be public, their code needs to be open source, verified, and multiple audits are required to ensure no back doors.
What comparable cases are you referring to? Because no ERC-20 token by itself can have intrinsic utility other than the ability to be bought, sold and sent to another address. However, the safe token, at the moment, is not transferable it cannot be bought or sold.
Opening up transferability at least gives the safe token three uses that it currently does not have.
Anyone with a brain can see that the only utility it needs out the gate is transferability - this will create the conditions needed for actual utility to be built as incentives align. Midcurvors stay midcurving though I guess
Exactly, the craziest part is the amount of people who are sidelined since these were airdropped who would be amazing contributors but simply need a route to buy. Baffling how bad some of these takes are
that’s a long time to wait
it cannot be bought or sold.