Remove karpatkey's safe DAO manager qualification

Title: [Discussion] Remove karpatkey’s safe DAO manager qualification

Authors: sunita_berma

Created: 2024-04-23

Abstract

Based on karpatkey’s series of performances, we believe that karpatkey should be deprived of its guardian qualifications and safeDAO manager qualifications.

Proposal types

Other SEPs

Proposal details

Purpose and Background

The role of a safe guardian and safe member is to safeguard the safety of the safe ecosystem and ensure the maximization of its value.

In the initial stages of the project, Karpatkey, holding a large number of safes, initiated the sale of 3M safes at an extremely low price of $2 (while the Uniswap price was $3), leading directly to the collapse of the safe market.

As a core member of the safe ecosystem, Karpatkey began dumping a significant amount of safe tokens for profit immediately upon their transferability. This behavior suggests a lack of optimism about the future of safe and indicates speculative activity within the safe ecosystem.

For instance,
when the safe token was on the verge of becoming transferable, Karpatkey promptly proposed to be voted as the manager of the Safe DAO. This proposal was rushed through while still under discussion, with a notable portion of negative votes, indicating hasty decision-making by voters who did not thoroughly review the proposal content.

Furthermore,
upon safe tokens becoming transferable, Karpatkey sold a substantial amount of tokens at an unusually low price. These actions lead us to believe that Karpatkey’s involvement in the safe ecosystem is not genuine, portraying him as a mere speculator with potential malicious motives.

Considering the above circumstances, we have grounds to suspect that Karpatkey’s intentions are not aligned with the values of the safe ecosystem. It’s evident that his continued participation could pose significant harm to the safe community, with potential risks of fraudulent activities within the ecosystem. There is even a possibility that the DAO managed by karpatkey could involve embezzlement.

Therefore, we propose the removal of Karpatkey’s Safe DAO manager qualification and the cancellation of his delegate status.

karpatkey

Effects and Impact Analysis

Deprive karpatkey of various rights in safe DAO.
no risks.

Implementation

  1. Revoke karpatkey’s Safe DAO manager qualification.
  2. Conduct a public vote to select a competent Safe DAO manager.
  3. Ensure that the voting period is sufficiently extended.
  4. Require candidates to provide adequate and logical justifications for their candidacy.
  5. Implement strict limitations on the rights and responsibilities of the candidates.

Open Questions

How can we choose a better manager for SAFE ecosystem.

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.

1 Like

More posts

Hi @sunita_berma,
The assertion that karpatkey initiated sales of SAFE tokens on the open market on the day of token transferability is incorrect.

We facilitated raising capital efforts through Over-The-Counter (OTC) transactions prior to the transferability event, exclusively with long-term strategic partners. All of them agreed to a one-year lock-up period, ensuring their commitment to the ecosystem’s longevity.

Thanks to these efforts, the Joint Treasury became the largest liquidity provider on dexes during the token launch day. Our involvement significantly dominated the trading volume, surpassing all centralised exchanges combined. This strategic positioning allowed us to mitigate selling pressure effectively by continuously purchasing SAFE tokens during price dips, thereby supporting and stabilising the market price.

The Joint Treasury actions have consistently aimed to maximise health and long-term value in the SAFE ecosystem. Claims of speculative behaviour misrepresent our intentions and the factual nature of our involvement.

karpatkey remains deeply committed to the SAFE ecosystem. A vision for sustainable growth and stability has guided our strategic decisions and actions. We welcome transparent, constructive dialogue and are prepared to address any further concerns with substantive evidence and engagement in the community discussions.

8 Likes

Do you have some kind of proof of this transaction and your agreement with this party?

Same here. Do you have some kind of proof of these transactions?

Please correct me, if I am wrong. I try to say it in layman terms here.
You changed the twitter post from buy to raised capital, because you use it as liquidity on DEX? Do you have more information on this?
As in: How much liquidity you provide and where?

1 Like

I’m new to the forum, so please be kind in your responses.

I thoroughly enjoy engaging in debates like these.

We can all concur that altering a Twitter post is rather unprofessional. @karpatkey should be aware that they have done a poor marketing job. Did they truly believe that nobody would notice?

Considering recent events and the trajectory of the $Safe token, Kapertkey has done a commendable job of promoting it without relying on speculation.

It’s more appropriate to hold the actual individuals accountable for a billion-dollar FMV loss.

CFO and other individuals involved in the project are the ones accountable. Absolutely, the responsibility lies with them for such a disaster.

Given the circumstances outlined above, removing @karpatkey won’t solve the issue; instead, we should consider replacing the masterminds behind the scenes.

1 Like

Karpatkey’s decision to transact an OTC deal to raise capital for liquidity is directly aligned with the intent to ensure liquidity of a new market. Given the lock up period of 1 year an investor will require a discount to perception of market. Ultimately, the token is working through price discovery and continues to move both up and down. Long term the liquidity is more valuable toward the long term success of SAFE.

At the end of the day - the liquidity of SAFE token allows more folks to participate in governance.

I can’t opine to the change in the tweet - ultimately I would prefer Karpatkey be transparent in their actions so believe the initial tweet was appropriate - my sense is they likely changed it due to community pushback but again believe defaulting to transparency is aligned with the long term ethos of SAFE.

1 Like

I regret occupying everyone’s time.

The 1M $SAFE investment in which I partook has been liquidated via an OTC vendor with a suitable price.

This action is unlikely to affect the market. As of now, I own no $SAFE anymore.

I shall refrain from further participation in discussions within the SAFE community.

Appreciation to all.

1 Like

Hi @Citrullin, @k1mb0n3, @kdowlin, as to provide clarity on your comments:

It’s crucial to remember that the objective of the Joint Treasury is to be used for rewards that are in the mutual interests of the Safe and Gnosis communities as well as creating liquid Safe markets with up to 2.5M $SAFE used for incentivising $SAFE DEX liquidity on the Gnosis Chain (as stated in the SAFE DAO Treasury Management Core Unit proposal).

Proof of transactions can be found on the blockchain. SAFE tokens from the Mainnet JT Treasury Safe were transferred out when each transaction occurred. The corresponding stablecoins for each OTC agreement hit the JT after token transferability given that funds between both parties were set in escrow. This only became executable with the Safe token becoming transferable. No Safe touched the open market.

To address this question, the relevant liquidity positions are the following (at the time of writing):

  • Mainnet JT Safe (DeBank):

    • ~$1.2M Uni V3 SAFE/ETH
    • ~$160k Uni V2 SAFE/ETH
  • Mainnet CoW AMM Safe (DeBank):

    • ~$420k CoW AMM SAFE/ETH
  • Gnosis Chain JT Safe (DeBank)

    • ~$1.9M Balancer SAFE/ETH

Every position listed above will be visible once April ends and Safe DAO <> Gnosis DAO JT is included in our usual monthly reports that we build for all the DAOs we work with.

5 Likes