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

Real ? Again wait few month for what ? Few users say NO and we again say need stable moment or need bla-bla …

1 Like

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,

1 Like

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!

I’m sorry, I wanted to do it with an account but I was having trouble posting so,

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.

Edit: Uploaded the screenshot


sir actually you are very successful, you don’t value our words, I want to tell you that 1 day ago the market was good & hashflow brought their token to the market, now you tell me how strong you are than them, your funding & backed is very good, You can light a fire in the market, but you see that the user is sitting claiming the token, but there is no name for the token to come to the market, it took less than 1.5 months, this time the market was stable, where was your voting then, now you are blaming the market, how long is the delay like this? Do listing?


In this vote, I am rather incomprehensible: in theory, investors should pay more attention to token prices/market, while guardians should pay more attention to building/developing.

Although the current market is quite bad, there is no obvious opposition from investors in the vote, but the guardian shows more concerns about the token price (most of the negative votes come from the guardian).

Knowing that the token price is indeed related to the investor’s income, but it has nothing to do with the work of builders, as long as they don’t plan to sell $SAFE for money, unpause in any kind of market will not affect the development of Safe ecosystem.

You know what I mean.

1 Like

I agree with your words, safe project is very strong but the team is very weak, they are afraid of the bear market even with 100m funding, I am not telling them to bring the token to the market now, take some time, come to the market after the market is a little stable, binance cz said one thing that strong project can never do anything in a bear market, we all want the token to go at a good price, but the safe team doesn’t want that, they might list with uniswap & cowswap liquidity.

It’s great to see such a heated discussion in the community, and let me see the spirit of DAO. Although it seems that there are still a lot of small questions about votes, it is already a big step for safedao.
According to the current votes of SEP#2, $safe should not be in circulation for the time being, especially after experiencing such a black swan event, but I personally think that unlocking the circulation of $safe is still important.
I still have doubts about the proposal. As the most popular proposal in the community, if the same unpause token proposal is proposed without major changes in the details, whether the same processing time is still required, I think this is worth discussing.


There was a bug with the new UI that made anyone who voted with it have an uncounted vote. I don’t know how many people are voting with their SAFEs, rather than an EOA, but many who did probably used the new UI as it launched during this vote window and all of their votes won’t be counted.

The UI has since been fixed, but after I think most people already voted.


If, as @MicahZoltu said, this vote was affected by safe’s new UI update, is there any reason to think that the vote for SEP#2 is not complete?

According to @Georg_Greenfield 's data analysis, there are still about 160M of votes that have not been voted, not sure if it is a data error or this part of the votes did not participate in the vote or abstained or was affected by the new UI?

As far as I’m concerned, if this poll is really affected by the new UI, maybe void this poll and reopen a 7-day SEP#2 poll to include all voters unaffected by other factors, regardless of the outcome How, may be more convincing to the community and more legitimate. Please correct me if I’m wrong,

1 Like

That’s a valid question.

Are you sure this is related to the recent UI update from a few days ago?

According to the Snapshot team, there was an old UI (Factory v1.0.0 ) not supported, however Factory v1.1.1 and v1.3 were always supported. As of yesterday, this bug is fixed. Currently, it is unclear to me how significantly this influenced the vote, if at all.

Or are we talking about two different things here?

Let’s collect some evidence but in case of doubt, the vote should certainly be repeated IMO. That being said, I’d strongly suggest that we find some way of doing a temperature check before just reuploading the proposal for this reason. As you all know, the macro environment changed dramatically and seems to have changed the minds of many. Since the questions is not if but when we’ll vote on this proposal again, we might as well postpone it to a later time that is subject to a few conditions.

Let’s discuss these conditions after the Snapshot vote has ended but several people had suggested some in this thread or on Twitter, e.g. waiting for the airdrop period to end, waiting for a better market environment, waiting for SafeDAO to ratify fundamental proposals (e.g., participation agreement, constitution, governance framework, funding/grants framework), waiting for SafeDAO to have a clearer idea of its revenue streams and long-term financial sustainability, etc.

Again, I don’t know the number of people who couldn’t vote due to the UI bug, but as you know from other DAOs, it is quite likely that those people did not vote for other reasons. Most DAOs have a voter participation rate of 1-10%. I also know from anecdotal/individual feedback that some token holders did not quite feel ready to participate, e.g. because they had not set up internal processes in their organization to evaluate and decide on proposals. It is unfortunate that only about 19M out of 180M potential tokens were used for voting, although I’m not surprised given past experiences in other DAOs and the early state of SafeDAO itself.


I need delete snapshot and load new ?

Hello @theobtl ,I agree with you, the fact that a lot of people have opinions on this vote, I think we do need a re-vote.

But it is worth noting that before this market crash, I remember that the ratio of enable and make no changes was 70%/30%, but after the FTX event/market crash, some people changed their vote.

I am very Sure that most people have concerns about current market conditions, there are undoubtedly many benefits to enabling transferability in itself, but in such bad market conditions, many people’s votes will be affected by the market conditions, instead of considering the benefits of enable transferability.

To put it simply, I do not recommend re-voting immediately under the current market conditions, I recommend watching for a while to see how the market is going, and if the market becomes stable/healthy, we will consider re-voting, which can avoid macro market factors impact on voting.

As for the temperature check vote you mentioned, I think we can do a forum poll first, and then we can also do a temperature check vote in snapshot to decide this matter.

  • Re-Vote
  • No Re-Vote

0 voters

  • Re-Vote Immediately
  • Re-Vote After Claim Period(12/28)

0 voters

It’s about more than a month away from the end of the claim period, I think it’s enough for us to observe the market situation, if the market becomes healthier, I think it’s a more reasonable choice to vote on 12/28/22


Hey friend, don’t delete vote as it’s a formal vote.

If we need a new vote, we can create a new one later.

A DAO should be more flexible, not fixed by rigid rules, and we can negotiate this proposal instead of meaningless quarrels


@Bruce No need to delete this proposal, that’s not even possible once voting has started. This is still a valid SEP, as it stands.

Let’s first let this proposal voting period finish. Then we’ll probably have a long crypto winter to discuss next steps and see when the community would like to bring this up to a vote again. I don’t think a Discourse poll here would be representative, would it? Might be a good idea to give it time to review the comments already made in this thread, posted on Twitter, the comments next to Snapshot votes and being it to the next community calls happening every two weeks.

Don’t do “community call” via zoom, you should know that most community members don’t use it.

If you really want a community call, use Discord or Twitter Space.


That’s helpful feedback, we were torn between Zoom & YouTube, Discord and Twitter Spaces. If you have more feedback about the previous community calls, let me know!