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.
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?
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.
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.
They won’t reply to this
The current token holders only include users and guardians (correct me if wrong), as @nodeE said, the current voting power percentage of user is indeed unreasonable, since no one can buy tokens from the secondary market at present, it seems more fair to consider the voting results of this snapshot calculated in the way of one person, one vote.
After the secondary market is enabled, the tokens will circulate freely, and it is more reasonable to vote based on voting power at that time.
And I obviously feel that the team has not fully considered the details of the token launch.
If it is really just focused on building the product, why rush to launch the token? Knowing that launching a token in a bear market is not the decision of the community, it is the decision of the team. And if the token cannot be circulated, why vest it linearly?
I think you have set too many “defensive measures” against users.
It seems unwise to unpause the SAFE transferability given that token holders have nominal information to determine the value and utility of the token. It’s best to be equipped with information about the future of the DAO before the token is unpaused, ideally through a detailed roadmap.
Flipside Governance will not be supporting SEP #2 in its current form and waiting for more market information before supporting an unpause.
While this is a contentious issue and the voting period ends soon, we hope leaving the token paused for now will allow us to work with the community to outline and craft a roadmap that stabilizes SAFE by instilling token holder trust.
Having a roadmap will ensure that SAFE price discovery incorporates the future value that can be created by the community and DAO.
You may not support , but more 1700 people SAY YES . Maybe you dont understand what need people , and so bad for us .
P.S :
People want have TOKEN ( not clone/fake ) real token , people may transfer , sell , hold . If we block token we not DAO . You may sent few message more about you non support but in this thread 95% support unpause , and we not like people who want block our right on decentralization .
We understand the excitement around the SAFE token and opportunity for price discovery, but we think the best path for the SafeDAO is to enable transferability later.
The inception of a DAO is a critical time to curate aligned stakeholders and rally the DAO around a shared vision and goals. Our current crop of token holders (e.g. Safe Guardians) is a well-curated set of potential DAO participants; and we believe we should prioritise enhancing their participation instead (e.g. with tools like NotiFi). The Constitution aligning our mission, goals, and principles has also yet to be agreed upon by the DAO.
Hence, we think the best time to enable transferability is once a few minimum viable milestones are met:
You people always said: let the initial holders vote, I didn’t realize what was wrong with that before, and now I understand that this is actually the best situation for you. 
As the initial voting power, users only have about 2.9% voting power, while insiders hold more than 90% of the voting power.
Therefore, voting on various proposals without the transferable token can ensure that the voting results are not determined by the majority of the community members, but always dozens of insiders.
I don’t think they want to bring the token to the market, but why was it necessary to give airdrop, if they take these decisions because they are afraid of the market, then I think those who backed them are just listeners, if they are backed, any project will never fear the market. I don’t get it, but because of the strange rules of the safe team, it seems that they are very afraid,
the one of the safe team says 2 months is too short, that means they should take more time, but I will tell you that crypto is very first, but if you proceed slowly Go that’s your failure
Looks that we have to decide this later because of recent market conditions.
I think the next vote timing should be December 28, 2022- the end of claim period, we can wait a month more and see how market going at that time and making more appropriate decision.
I’m completely sure that make the token transferable now is not a good idea, we actually sitting in the worst bear period now, if the market really become more stable and hopeful, like no new ATL appear and keeping go up for some weeks, then it’s the right time to decide this.
I’m just talking the market, because this is the only good reason to delay the decision, all other reasons are not convincing enough.
If we think about the market, we don’t know if it will be okay even if we delay it for 6 months, the team has passed 1.5 months, it’s not good, we are sitting claiming the token, but this 1.5 months has ended like this, isn’t it a big time, and you are saying the bad condition of the market. It has been very bad for some time, hope it will take a few days, so it makes no sense to delay it for 1 month, and the safe project is not a small project that will be afraid of the bear market, their backing is so strong, I think they should be afraid. No, I think they should make a decision about Listong very soon, and the most important thing is to keep a close eye on the token, but there are many projects coming in this bear market, they have made the community happy, but I wonder if the safe team can do it. I think they’re very smart but they’re not really that smart, anyway, that’s what I’d like to tell them to think about a little more.