[SEP #2] Community Initiative To Unpause Token Contract (Enabling Transferability)

Hi, first of all, I’d like to apologize to everyone who messaged me in the last two weeks and didn’t get a reply, as I’ve been hit pretty hard by Covid and had to ruthlessly prioritize who I reply to – at the end of the day, my recovery came before everything else and I didn’t always have the energy to communicate with those who’ve reached out to me via all kinds of channels.

As some of you may have seen, I changed the proposal a little bit a few days ago to make it clear that the SafeSnap module should be used. I would like to thank @Arseny and @0xAA for the great input on this.

I’m also glad to see that there was a lot of discussion in the time I was away, because the intention behind this proposal was always to engage the community.

And I’m looking forward to seeing the voting process begin tomorrow. This is a key moment as now the SAFE token’s transferability or non-transferability (depending on the outcome of the vote) gets its legitimacy from all of us voting.

Maybe this proposal will go through, maybe we will have to revisit unpausing the token contract in a few months. In the end, no matter how the vote goes, it is a victory for the autonomy of SafeDAO.


So sorry to hear Daniel, wishing you a full recovery very soon!

Thank you for being so engaged in our community, even despite your recent and presumably still ongoing process with Covid! The quality and attention to detail in this proposal clearly resonated with a lot of community members.

The last days also demonstrated how well this community can work together, discussing a proposal and coordinating next steps even in your absence. That was an interesting and useful test, if you will. :slight_smile: I wonder how we can improve the design our governance process here, keen to hear anyone’s thoughts (in a separate thread) or even organise a retro call!


One more thing … for the sake of being able to use the SafeSnap module and to avoid ambiguous results, I back off from my previous stance that we should have 3 voting options (immmediate unpausing, unpausing after claim period, make no changes/decide later) and I recommend limiting ourselves to two options:

  • Enable transferability
  • Make no changes/Decide later

On that earlier note, @lukas just published a phase 0 proposal „SafeDAO constitution“.

While the constitution is of course quite high-level and this proposal at hand quite specific, they do relate to another. May be worth reviewing the constitution proposal before making up your mind about the upcoming vote on this SEP-2.


The constitution should be discussed when those who agree with it can buy a token and not consonants can sell it.

Now, we can say that all token holders are held hostage by the bureaucracy and, if we talk about real things, cannot do anything. At all.

There is a possibility that someday unlocking will occur, but maybe not. Maybe there will continue to be new reasons not to put this issue to the vote in a snapshot.

The Constitution is beautiful. Thank you for the great work. But in order to work collectively on it, I think it is necessary to first solve the issue of basic freedom of action of participants.

I apologise for my English.


If your question is whether SEP-2 and the constitution proposal are separate proposals, then yes, absolutely!

They are being discussed independently and neither of them are currently approved by a DAO vote. SEP-2 seems to be much closer to that (currently in late phase 1) while the constitution proposal has just been put up for discussion (phase 0) and is not even an official SEP yet.

With my previous comment, I just wanted to raise awareness here for the constitution proposal and encourage everyone to review whether they think that SEP-2 would be in line with the constitution (in its current form). I personally think so but everyone should make up their mind themselves.

Strictly speaking, the constitution would arguably only apply to proposals and other activities happening from the time of when it passes a Snapshot vote, not retrospectively. Although practically speaking, we’d probably want to make sure that any SEP that passes before the constitution does is already aligned to avoid contradictions in the future.


Hello ! DAY X IS DONE . Today we may upload to snapshot SEP #2 , Who upload this ? I may upload or maybe Daniel or maybe other , pls reply , i need know this .

Can we Just have someone post a proposal with the safesnap plugin vote this in and run a quick vote seeing as though this was already approved?

What was the point of the snapshot if it wasn’t in there in the first place?

I don’t get it it already passed so can we just put it live? I doubt the team doesn’t have the ability to do that no one would entirely trust that feature to the community alone. So can someone from the team either just flip the switch seeing as though it passed. In lieu just run another vote rn with the safesnap plugin enabled. And turn it live rn. Am I wrong thats literally what the “DAO” just voted on. And it passed so… Either respect the governance or rerun the vote with the features enabled.

Anyone with enough tokens can do it. I have a few safes so… i think im just a bit below threshold on individual tokens in each safe or i would do it.

Hi , may i upload this SEP to snapshot or need Daniel only ?

Let’s hold each other accountable to ensure that the dates proposed are met. This should be uploaded to snapshot as promised on Wednesday, Nov 2nd. If there are continued delays from the minority that have the ability to bring this to a vote, that is concerning. Regardless of the motivation, it has already made the majority DAO participants below the proposal threshold feel that their participation does not have any consequence. If a minority has the exclusive ability to pick the candidates, then the outcome of the election will always favor the interests of that minority. See “Tweedism” in American politics.

To be clear, the governance process says it can be uploaded from today — not that it must necessarily be uploaded today. Although you’re right of course that it’s expected to happen anytime now. Is anyone already on it?

Anyone with at least 20k SAFE in their wallet can upload the proposal to Snapshot. This is not limited to the proposal author, @Daniel, but asking if he’s already on it would make sense of course. In principle, you can certainly upload it!

Why team will not upload it

I’m not home at the moment, but if no one else posts it to Snapshot, I will do it personally in a few hours.

So please don’t mind me, if you want you can post it directly to Snapshot. That would actually be convenient for me, but I can do it later of course.


For various reasons, mainly because SafeDAO should empower all stakeholders of its DAO, not just the team behind Safe. Since the team has been working on Safe as a product for many years already, the team has an unfair advantage in terms of know-how on the product and its ecosystem, if you will. SafeDAO’s governance process puts a counter-weight to that and prioritises decentralised governance from the start.

Also, @Daniel as the proposal author has a say (and did just comment as I’m writing this :arrow_up: ).


Okay, seems to me like the team are not interested in this proposal!

Because they want to make the proposal more like a community decision, I guess they will not vote on this proposal either.

1 Like

For Daniel’s convenience and for the rest of our DAO, I have decided to upload this proposal to Snapshot. I pointed out that the author of the proposal was Daniel, and only just speeded up the process.

I ask all DAO members to vote! Together - we are force !


1 Like

Thanks @Bruce! :muscle:

Did you include the SafeSnap instructions too like described here?

1 Like

Good Work Bruce, but you forgot to add SafeSnap, please delete it and let’s make a new one.
Also there are some typos when copied in, need to fix them.


+1 to deleting and reuploading with SafeSnap instructions.

And while we’re on it, let’s also fix the formatting and missing links. That’s easiest done by the proposal author who can edit the proposal, copy the formatting (as below) and – crucially – not change and save anything.

* **Title:** Community Initiative To Unpause Token Contract (Enabling Transferability)
* **Author:** [Daniel](https://twitter.com/danftz), Co-founder @ Decentra
* **Created:** 2022-09-28

## Abstract

This is a proposal to call the unpause method of the token contract (using the SafeSnap module), which would result in the SAFE token becoming transferable. Unvested tokens would still remain in the vesting contract, and thus would not become transferable.

## Proposal details

### Purpose and Background

If we go with the definition of Adam Levi, Co-founder @ DAOStack, a token needs to hold two distinct properties to be actually called a token:

* A token cannot be taken away from its owner.
* The owner can transfer the token to anyone else, without requesting permission.

While the first point is satisfied with the current design, the same is not true for the second. Since SAFE does not have the two properties mentioned above, we cannot consider it a token (yet) per the definition of Adam Levi.

I'm not sure if I completely agree with him on this definition, but I do think that those two properties are fundamentally important to a token that is intended to govern a DAO. 

While non-transferability has its advantages (e.g., the governance process is more resilient against malicious vote-buying at all participation rates), it also has some disadvantages:

- Without transferability enabled, those who want to participate in governance, but don't have any tokens allocated to them, can't acquire tokens (=voting power), nor can they bring in proposals on Snapshot themselves, which requires at least 20K SAFE. That basically makes this DAO a static, closed organisation as of now, without any new participants being able to come in. 
- It limits the scope of activities to be made by SafeDAO (it won't attract contributors who want to be paid in a liquid token, no feasible way to conduct OTC trades, etc.)

### Effects and Impact Analysis

Having a transferable token also makes it tradeable, this is inevitable. In an adverse market environment such as the one we're currently finding ourselves in, this might lead to a suppressed valuation compared to what it could have been a year ago.

However, I'm not sure if that's actually something we should care about, as price fluctuations are simply part of how a market-based economy works. I don't think SafeDAO should structure its roadmap around how to maximize token value. The current macro environment is outside our sphere of influence, and honestly I believe that a "hockey-stick" price chart is more favorable than a down-only chart with the peak being the token launch, resulting in disillusioned market participants as we've seen in the past with tokens like DYDX, PSP and countless others. 

**It is beyond SafeDAO's control if and how individuals/institutions choose to price SAFE. Therefore, we should not let the adverse market environment influence our decision on whether to make this token transferable or not.**

### Alternative Solutions

- We could keep the token non-transferable indefinitely, this would be a radical experiment in DAO governance.

As mentioned above, the advantage here is obviously the increased resilience against malicious vote-buying. The big down side is the fact, that the ownership structure, voting power held by individuals and institutions, would remain static. I reject this on this basis that I'd rather have (new) players who genuinely want to participate in governing SafeDAO accumulate tokens and thus increasing their voting power, than maintaining the status quo indefinitely. And with a high voter turnout, there would also be sufficient resilience against malicious vote buying - even with a transferable token.

- We could wait until SafeDAO has matured to enable transferability of the SAFE token.

This is the alternative solution that appeals to me almost as much as the immediate unpausing of the token contract. Simply because this would give us time to think about what SafeDAO wants to accomplish and how to structure everything (there's for example the ["Outcomes-based resource allocation (‘OBRA’)"](https://forum.safe.global/t/discussion-safe-dao-resource-allocation-model-obra/1001) model proposed by @pet3rpan-1kx which could be interesting to adopt). 

However, despite all of this, I believe we should not wait until SafeDAO has matured (although that would not be a disaster either). We should start attracting contributors now, for which a liquid token is necessary and we should not voluntarily limit the scope of our activities, which is a result of this non-transferability.

And what if SafeDAO can never mature without having a transferable, liquid token to attract contributors, etc. in the first place? I can't give a definitive answer to this, but this is a realistic scenario in my opinion that should not be overlooked.

### Technical Implementation

To make the token transferable no significant additional code is required, however the owner of the token has to call the unpause method of the token contract. This can be accomplished without an intermediary or gatekeeper by ensuring that the "unpause()" function is called by the SafeSnap module. Once the token contract is unpaused (and therefore the token is transferable), it is not possible to pause the token contract again (e.g. once transferable forever transferable). 

(Thanks to @Arseny for his suggestion regarding the use of the SafeSnap module)

Source: https://github.com/safe-global/safe-token/blob/6a1a4a99a7f3166b525cbd5469eaf0aea1c88e54/docs/token.md

## Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).