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.
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:
Until after the claim deadline so that all eligible and active token holders are included
The Constitution is ratified by initial token holders
The first metagovernance proposal (OBRA) has passed
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.
I know, I’m sure that most people want the token transferrable, but the market crash yesterday is a bit unexpected.
We don’t need to unpause in the bull market at all, but at least don’t unpause in the worst market conditions.
I still think unpause transfer is the top priority for us, this is a basic function of a DAO token, but we can reconsider this in a more stable market timing.
I am not saying that they should list now, they have taken a lot of time, only now it is a matter of listing, it is not right for them to delay so much time, they have introduced token claim option, it is good, but why did they take so much time, if they are wrong, then it is wrong. No, we do many things,
There have been so many talks about speculators here, but in the end you are speculators! It is you who are justified either by the market, or by an early date, or by some other nonsense! Because of you, people’s voices mean nothing!
Why did you give out an airdrop? What is the point of a token if 1 person has 1.2kk tokens and the other only 1000? He can’t buy more tokens, we can’t sell them, what’s the point? At the moment, the safe is a worthless token that does nothing, and the fact that you are now trying to prevent its birth is very sad.
You say that you proceed from the position of the market? What difference does it make if our task is to ensure the transfer of the token and not to earn you a penthouse !!
Please answer my words, safe team, you have given token airdrop to 50m users, but claimed 25m, which I can say you did very well, but how will 190m total come to the market, now you show me the list, yes I saw but they Main Billen gave them so many tokens, won’t they bring down the market, while giving tokens, they didn’t tell the community how to do it, now they are coming to say whether we will enable token transfer, it’s very funny, now that Snapshot vote has been launched, now you tell me. Users have been given very few tokens which means they have less voting power, because you don’t think that those who have more tokens will pass a few votes, because they have more voting power, do you think it is fair,
I’m not sure I understand your question, but let me try.
When you mention the user airdrop, you’re right that users of Safe only got so much of the total allocation of SAFE, while other groups like Guardians received more. (That is, the same amount in total, but more per account.) This was supposed to be a feature of SafeDAO, not a bug. Guardians are contributors to the Safe ecosystem and were rewarded for their contributions. This should also be in the interest of users, since contributors to the Safe ecosystem keep Safe maintained and build innovative solutions on top of Safe. Guardians are also by no means a fixed group. There will be more opportunities in the future to become a Guardian, based on valuable contributions to the Safe ecosystem. Any user who chooses to get involved and contribute to Safe will have a chance to become a Guardian, too.
I understand that the raw numbers of the token distribution may seem like users only got a small portion (5%), but please note that – if you exclude the 60% treasury allocations – almost all allocations go to a certain user group. 5% to non-contributing users, another 5% to Guardians who are usually users too (individual or organisational) as well as 7% as grants/ecosystem rewards which will also likely go to individual or organisational heavy-users who also professionally work with or around Safe. Lastly, Safe would not be here without the support behind the 8% strategic raise as well as the 15% team & future team allocation. Like @lukas, I am not aware of any team member voting on SEP-2.
In short, I wonder whether the distribution is really that unfair when contributing users and others helping the Safe ecosystem grow are rewarded too besides non-contributing users. We’re in this for the long run and the Safe ecosystem needs to be built, maintained, and grown which is why, IMO, it is so important to also give voting power to Guardians and the wider ecosystem. Wouldn’t you agree?
If you’re asking why the Snapshot vote is going how it does, we’ll have to look at the macro environment I suppose. You’re right that not every voter by far explained themselves here in this thread. Some did so on Twitter, in other channels or through a comment on their Snapshot vote. Ideally, we would have them all commenting here - something to improve with future SEPs. Still, I personally find it reasonable to assume that some voters would now vote for “make no changes/decide later” or even change their previous vote to that, just due to the recent developments around FTX and the ongoing market turmoil.
Sorry I hadn’t responded sooner. That being said, it’s sufficient to post your comment through one account. cc @user34@Rifat
Our goal is not to earn a safe on the token
Our goal is just to make the token a token (enable its transfer), it’s very funny for me to watch how funds and other persons vote against the transfer of the token, if you are so smart let’s turn off your safe so that you can’t withdraw your ethers and dollars, whatever you say ?
I don’t understand how using cryptocurrencies and accepting them for storage you can vote against the standard function of the token, you are very terrible! I and other people have spent 2 months for terrible people like you to just press 1 button and not say anything to the rest! You have betrayed the DAO!
I’m sorry that the project is doomed, theobtl, goodbye, it’s a pity that you support a dictatorship where the opinion of more than 1500 means nothing, just because they do not have so many tokens and 10-20 people decided everything for them, so arrogantly and treacherously!
A few statistics on the current proposal to provide more facts to the current discussions:
Currently just under 2k wallets have voted and it is clear that significantly more wallets have voted to enable transferability (88%). Nevertheless, the camp that votes for the activation of transferability is behind with almost 1.8M votes.
To my knowledge, 18% of all tokens are currently eligible to vote and participate in the proposal. These consist of 5% airdrop to users, 5% airdrop to guardians and 8% strategic raise. This number may be wrong, especially since it doesn’t consider the 15% core contributor allocation, however I believe @Theobtl when he says they don’t know anyone on the team who votes.
This means 180M SAFE tokens can participate in the vote, vs the 18M that actually participate currently. However, it’s not impossible that a few last minute votes will still come in. Also, if you look at the top 10 wallets that have already voted, 5 are against and 5 are for, however the wallets voting for have more SAFE tokens.
If you take a closer look at the wallets that voted for not activating transferability, you can see that the average wallet has a voting power of about 83k SAFE, but the median is 394 SAFE, which indicates that many small wallets voted to not activate. I also found it interesting to find out that only 1/3 of all wallets voting to not activate have more than 1k SAFE (the airdropped amount).
Personal note: I think it’s sad to see that the debate has gotten to such a personal and non-technical level. Everyone knew what they were getting into. I mean that with regard to the token supply, as well as the procedure according to which the vote is taken and I hope to see more constructive discussions in the proposals to come. I have not voted yet, as im still on the fence.
