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

Once the Snapshot proposal has been reviewed by a few more people and voting starts in about 23h, it will be announced on the Safe Governance Twitter like every other SEP, of course.

On that note, everyone: If you haven’t yet, consider following and enabling notifications there so that you’ll always be in the known about SEPs in phase 1 (forum discussion) and phase 2 (Snapshot).

1 Like

It’s okay :+1: let’s see the outcome by the community

First it was only 24 hrs after the waiting period now we have to wait til tomorrow to vote, they seriously dragging it.

They act as if everything will be perfect first time around.

1 Like

No , all okey , its standart

1 Like

Who exactly set the standards?

Not sure what you mean. The timeline was/is as follows:

  1. SEP created, review period for at least six days.
  2. proposal changed, new review period for six days.
  3. proposal uploaded to snapshot, triggers automatic 24h voting delay to make sure parameters are correct. This is a standard Snapshot feature which is also outlined in our governance process.
  4. proposal open for voting on Snapshot for 7 days
  5. if the Snapshot proposal passes, a SafeSnap escalation game takes place where the outcome can be challenged and, after a safety delay, anyone can trigger the final on-chain execution of this proposal

Also who do you mean by „they“? This proposal really was proposed by Daniel who’s not part of the Safe team and uploaded to Snapshot by Bruce who is neither. Whenever I commented on adhering to our governance process, I wouldn’t call that „dragging it“ but just making sure things are in order based on [HOW TO] SafeDAO Governance Process.




Got me there chief, by they I was actually referring to you, next time I’ll directly tag you.


Oh, my post above was in response to @Nully, didn’t see you referring to “they” anywhere, did you?
Hope that sheds some light on the process as it currently. I’ll be the first to say that the process certainly isn’t optimal. Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts too, I’ve already got quite a few insights from SEP-2 (and 1) on how we can improve our governance process here. But that’s for another thread and an upcoming governance framework proposal. :slight_smile:

1 Like

The parameters in SafeDAO’s Snapshot space and the SafeSnap plugin certainly still need to be discussed and potentially changed as part of the governance framework proposal. Currently, they were just set while setting up the existingm barebone infrastructure to enable SafeDAO to vote at all and have trustless on-chain execution of proposals. At least that is the case now. Classic chicken-and-egg situation.

To the best of my knowledge, the parameters are currently set as follows:

So, practically speaking for SEP-2:

  • given this proposal passes, after 10 Nov 2022 at 12:14 UTC, someone will need to request the execution of this proposal and set an outcome, which requires a stake
  • unless anyone challenges that set outcome within the timeout period, the outcome is finalised and the cooldown period starts
  • once the cooldown period has ended, the outcome can be executed as a transaction anytime within the answer expiration period of 7 days

See also this handy guide by Gnosis Guild on how SafeSnap/Reality works.


I agree fully that unpausing the contract will be good for the Safe ecosystem and may also:

  • Encourage more people to interact with the Safe Protocol;
  • Allow for price discovery of the SAFE token asset;
  • Imbues the $SAFE asset with value based on supply/demand dynamics;
  • Enables the SafeDAO treasury to use its native asset for ecosystem growth;
  • Allows people the ability to transfer control of the token between wallets.

I have question , who add token on exchange ? Binance or other ? User cant add token on exchange .

If token unlock i think we need list to TOP EXCHANGE , our project need more fresh people and we need trust .


@lukas , maybe you give info about listing on exchange ( token $safe) and luqidity pool ?

I voted no on this proposal because it is under-specified and insufficiently reviewed/audited.

The proposal claims to be calling the unpause function, but the code behind the proposal also removes two modules without any mention in the proposal’s text as to why these modules are being removed.

Additionally, from glancing over this thread, it appears that the transaction set was proposed by one person (@0xAA) and there was no publicly visible review of the proposed transactions, they were just thrown into a vote very shortly after being enumerated.

While the code proposed here may be legitimate and bug free, I think as a community we should strongly oppose any proposals that doesn’t…
A. …include a technical description that explains every proposed transaction and its effects in detail.
B. …get publicly reviewed/audited (doesn’t have to be formal/paid) by experts who understand the system.

I encourage people to vote no on this and we try again with the above things addressed so we set a precedent for best practices within this community.

Separately, I feel like 7 days is way too short. We shouldn’t ever be needing to move that fast.


This is getting tougher on the pitch (snapshot) and I love it😄

Keep voting, everyone!!! :muscle:

1 Like

It seems this proposal won’t pass

Removing modules was the team’s own plan and you didn’t know it.

This proposal has been discussed for over a month, and you said it was only 7 days.

To be honest, I don’t see the point of this kind of voting at all.

Less than 30 people hold more than 90% of the voting power.

Most of the 30 people were guardians with official backgrounds, most of them voted against in the vote.

Which means that the votes of the remaining 1,600 people are completely meaningless, and more than 95% of the 1,600 voted yes.

This kind of voting simply does not reflect the opinions of the majority users.

The ending is decided by the votes of people with official background/team related.

About 1% of the people(among top 30) voted against, and more than 95% of the people voted for, but currently It looks like this proposal will probably not pass.

We all know this is simply not fair and does not reflect community opinion

Regardless of the outcome of this vote, I ask the team not to refer to this vote as a “DAO decision”, it’s just a decision by someone with an official background/team related.


This is the decision of the team/official background guardian/team related person.

If you call it “DAO’s decision” to help you avoid some legal/regulatory risks, then when you may take legal responsibility in the future, please Don’t let the remaining 1600 community members/so called DAOs take the blame for you because most of those 1600 voted yes and you voted no.

In my opinion this is what you do, ignore the interests of most users, and control almost all voting rights. You clearly know that most users want tokens transferable, but you stand on the opposite side of most people’s opinion without hesitation.

I used SAFE more than hundreds of times, but any of the Guardians got more tokens than me, we spend gas to claim tokens, we spend time participating in governance, but our opinions are meaningless.


This fren has a points @lukas @theobtl

1 Like

Thanks for voicing your concerns, @nodeE! I’d really like to know what we as the SafeDAO community should do to improve this situation, in your opinion.

Perhaps we’re talking about different ideas and assumptions on how DAO governance is supposed to work. After all, lots of DAOs experiment with lots of different ways to vote.

The concept we know from most nation states – one person, one vote – is rather uncommon amongst DAOs, Proof of Humanity DAO being a notable exception.

AFAIK, most DAOs including SafeDAO fall back on token-weighted voting. This often mirrors a plutocratic structure by default, but I believe that SafeDAO is doing much better than the average DAO because of the fact that we thankfully have Guardians who “have verifiably proven their commitment to [SafeDAO’s] vision”.

When you say “official background”, what do you mean exactly and do you look at that as a bad thing? Personally, I see the Guardian programme as a brilliant innovation and feature of SafeDAO – not a bug – because we’re lucky to have a group of skilled and well intentioned experts who have provably contributed to Safe, and this group received quite a bit of voting power for that reason. Personally, I feel quite relieved to know that this group is a major voice in our community, next to all Safe users, investors and the team.

Long story short, we may want to align more explicitly as a community what kind of decision-making logic we want behind SafeDAO. One person, one vote via KYC? Via DID? Token-weighted voting without any constraints, meaning a pure plutocracy where your voting power is just a matter of how much you pay for it? Or a meritocracy where domain experts are given more voting power?

These are fundamental questions of democracy which humanity has faced for thousands of years, of course.

We don’t need to reinvent the wheel in SafeDAO, but we do have the opportunity to use web3 to question voting mechanisms that became common over the last decades or centuries but should perhaps be questioned. I also see us on a long journey here and will be the first to admit that the current state of our governance is certainly not ideal.

As a starting point, I’d summarise the current situation as follow:

  • Phase 0 and 1 proposals are subject to a forum discussion, which approximates one person, one vote in the sense that individuals are free to comment their opinion in the forum and their token holdings do not matter at this point. Of course, Discourse is not sybil-resistant but we could introduce a system (based on POH or Gitcoin passport, for instance) to work towards that.
  • Phase 2 proposals are subject to a token vote, whereas SAFE follows a mix of meritocracy (especially allocations to Guardians based on proven positive contributions) and plutocracy (if and once SAFE is transferable)

Where do you suggest we go from here?


You are right. Currently, the SafeDAO governance resembles operationally more a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. As most people/users, delegated their voting power to Guardians. Either because they trust their judgment or they feel that their delegate can represent their interests best.

While this increases efficiency and better overall voting turnout, it also means that, at the end of the day, a smaller amount of people/entities are deciding a vote compared to a fully direct-democratic system.

However, Snapshot allows any person delegating their voting power to overwrite their delegate’s vote if they do not agree with it.

To my knowledge, nobody from the core team participated in any of the SafeDAO votes so far. So strongly disagree with the notion that these are not community-driven decisions.

Also want to add that while other DAOs decided to have most of their token distribution go exclusively to users, we did intentionally distribute to ecosystem participants (builders, projects). So while I can understand the frustration that, as a result, user have relatively less voting power, I’d also want to point out that users are in fact not the only stakeholders of the Safe Protocol.

Many of the delegates that voted against this proposal clearly communicated their thought process on Twitter. So you are free to challenge their reasoning, but just saying that peoples voices are being ignored is a bit too simple in my opinion.

I’m definitely curious to here concrete ideas how the governance can be improved as the possibilities are endless:

  • Two chamber system
  • Opening up to more delegates and incentivize/facilitate re-delegation
  • Quadratic voting, one person one vote, and other mechanisms

I do understand that you want the Safe Token to become transferable ideally yesterday, but please also not fully discard that there are different opinions on this topic and like many things, there is no right and wrong.