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

sir vote should be done by people, not by token, you can see now 90% user voted for transferable token they should win then why 10% user will win with the power of token, you will bring it to the token market where You have to highlight that which will read more votes


Of course not. I only asked you to elaborate on what in your opinion would be a better voting system than it is now. What specifically were you thinking of changing, @nodeE?

Again, I believe SafeDAO is already better than most DAOs in web3 that are typically highly plutocratic and the vast majority of community members have virtually no token weight. In our case, we at least have already ensured that the most engaged community members who built on Safe or contributed positively in some other way received voting power.

Let’s not stop here though, of course. There’s still a lot to improve in the process.

These are all worth discussing and may well be worth making the next SEP.

Don’t thank me, because I really want to scold you now, but it’s hard for me to use bad language to communicate with you because of your thank you.

If you are just trying to perfunctory / deceive most of the community members, please don’t waste your time, fake governance/pseudo-democracy goes against the original intention of decentralization, if 1% of people use their voting rights to defeat more than 95% of the people, Then this is not decentralized at all.

We choose to store assets in SAFE because these assets cannot be taken away by a small number of people with most power. If the governance represented by $SAFE is determined by a small number of people who do not represent most people’s opinion, then everything is like a joke.


1 Like

Your statement about democracy reminds me of my bad memory about ccp. Even today ,they still insist that 1.4b people enjoying their democracy .


Quadratic Voting, One person One vote❓I will say NO to this regardless of the outcome of this ongoing #SEP2

The primary purpose of $SAFE as at now is for governance- to gain voting power and vote.

I’m not against any other improvements people may propose but the Quadratic Voting doesn’t sit well from my end, I’m feeling like we will want to cut off the only use-case $SAFE token have at this moment.

As regard the current results on snapshot (about 50% - 50%), I would suggest we make announcement on the SafeDAO Twitter and to be retweeted by @safe educating people that they can over ride the decision made by delagetes if don’t agree with it.

They can only over turn such decision by voting directly with their SAFE which is the main owner of the voting power.

Right now, delegating to their EOA won’t give the newly delegates address voting power because snapshot of voting power has been taken at a specific block but voting with SAFE will work well but that comes with paying gas fee

I did the same here!!!


Dear sir, @nodeE
I understand how you feeling and I really want the token transferable too (verily, you know this) but I believe this DAO is still at the experimental stage and this type of proposal #SEP2 is a good one to know is set right and what needs improvements.

No one talked about voting power and no one would have bother about it if the current #SEP2 on snapshot didn’t turn out this way.

I’m glad to see some of the core team including the DAO coordinator seeing this as a problem that need fixing too.

So, I would suggest we keep supporting by proposing improvements where we deem fit. Taking it hard on the concerned ones may not be the best thing to do at this moment

Thanks for being active here and thanks for being among the few that made taking this #SEP2 to snapshot faster. I personally appreciate all you do here


What’s happening ? Why is the opinion of 1600 users ignored? I think we should unpause because the majority of the PEOPLE voted and not the Delegates. I said that without unlocking the token, the DAO will become a dictatorial platform where only a couple of people, and as we see very stupid people, can rule, even if we start voting again 1600 will vote FOR again and only 3-4 people will again be against, so we will be doomed always depend on their opinion! This is NOT DECENTRALIZATION, this is DIACTATURE! FREEDOM SAFE!!!


Yes, decentralization is in fact the most important thing in the crypto world, the essence of blockchain is to decentralize ownership to everyone, not a few with the most power :crazy_face:


We need win ! Not few idiots , we all DAO , WE WANT UNPAUSE !

1 Like

Make a new SEP,
Discuss it for over a month,
Then put it on the snapshot for the minority who have most power to vote against?

The whole process is under the control of the team/team related people, I have no interest in this kind of discussion any more.


agree brother, even after they took so much time, they want more time, crypto first, but they are moving very slowly, they have no headache to come up with token market.


what is the rationale behind NOT unpausing the token? a DAO token needs to be transferable at all times. If the team doesnt want to unpause, why introduce a linear vesting scheme for 50% of the SAFE tokens?


I think this voting is not counted. Some people use most of the safe tokens in their hands to control the discourse power of the community. A few people control the community, which is not decentralized at all. It is not dao at all. I suggest using the safe multi signature wallet to vote. One wallet address counts as one vote. Voting requires the consumption of gasfee. Even the whales with most of the tokens have only one veto, which can be relatively fair, This is the dao.


They are manipulating the DAO… QED…


The issue is not who users delegate their tokens to, users only have 3% of the voting power, and whether or not to delegate will not change the outcome, voting is decided by a small number of people associated with the team.


I hear you. This proposal has been long in the making and apparently there is a significant number of people who now choose to vote to make no changes/decide later but never explained themselves in this thread. That’s frustrating of course if you don’t agree with their opinion.

Let me just point out one thing, about the number of accounts voting for either option:

Are you sure these numbers are accurate? Let’s stick to the facts. Snapshot shows you the accounts who delegated to a given address. If you look at the data, the top 10 accounts by voting power represent a total of 1146 accounts which delegated to them. As of now, about 1750 wallets in total voted.

Meaning, the top accounts with a lot of voting power in fact represent a large amount of other accounts who chose to delegate to them. All of these accounts can still choose to vote themselves, if they wish to, and override the vote of their delegate.

However, and let me also stress this again: this is not to say that the process couldn’t or shouldn’t be improved. Quite the contrary! SafeDAO is just about two months old and we still have a lot of work to do to improve its governance.


Some people, frankly, are talking nonsense that has nothing to do with Tao!

for example : 0x869eC00FA1DC112917c781942Cc01c68521c415e
this adress say want fixed price for token , what the heck? How can you fix the price?

1 Like

According to the current number of tokens claimed by users, the voting power of users are only about 2.9%, so no matter whether users delegate tokens or not, it cannot change the fact that users have no any real decision power.

As for whether 1% of the people use the voting power to beat the 95% of the people, you can also calculate yourself to see if I’m correct.

1 Like

Don’t just use tens of thousands of users as your data to get funding, and then assign all the actual benefits and power to insiders, shame on you.


I posted my rationale here: [SEP #2] Community Initiative To Unpause Token Contract (Enabling Transferability) - #157 by MicahZoltu

I didn’t vote against unpausing the token, I voted against a proposal that included code that wasn’t explained/discussed in the proposal text and was lacking public comments from multiple trusted experts on the behavior of the transactions being executed.

Allowing the text of a proposal to say X and then the contract do Y is an excellent way to get your DAO governance attacked, so I think we need to set extremely strong community norms that make it a hard requirement that every proposal has text that includes a description of every action taken as well as references to trusted people who have reviewed the code and assert its correctness.