Regarding $Safe enabling transferability voting process

SafeDAO governance has always been shaped by the community. Just like the other DAOs, which are also not in a perfect state, the SafeDAO framework is continuously being improved through community input - see the latest amendments here. Agree, that we are probably on the more diligent end with SafeDAO, but feels like this has also done a good job of stabilizing the process.

Looking at how functional key initiatives have gone through now, e.g., the OBRA process and voting, or discussion on token utility, it’s great to see how effective the contributions of Guardians and other community members are.

I think that there really are a lot of exciting things happening in Safe that maybe aren’t getting the attention they deserve. For instance, developer activity in the ecosystem is at an all-time high, if you look at amount of projects in the Safe ecosystem. Passed $80bn in assets locked for the first time (now into $90bn), with 30m transactions.

Re SAFE token vesting, there are obv differing views out there like with any larger token launch. In Safe’s case, the DAO played a significant role in deciding to postpone transferability, as opposed to, e.g., a foundation making that decision unilaterally. Agree with you that hopefully, as it comes online, more people will be enticed to more actively participate.