While I don’t have any issue with the results of the vote, or even how the vote is decided (on-chain Governance has always been token-based, which has equal pros and cons), I do think more transparency on these larger wallets should be provided.
The two top voters appear to be delegates of some sort? Their Safe addresses seemed to have been created solely for this purpose, as they have no other activity.
I feel strongly about taking as much as a neutral stance here whenever I’m trying to coordinate our governance activities. I’m welcoming criticism and suggestions any time.
In this case, the whole point of my write-up was to summarize all comments on how to proceed if SEP-2 did not pass. By definition, this does not include arguments why it should pass or what we should do once it has passed.
Many of those who voted against SEP-2 already commented on that. Those who voted for rarely did, so I especially ask everyone who has voted for SEP-2 to review the post above, make up their own mind and share their suggestions on how we should proceed.
Specifically, what are the conditions, milestones and achievements we want to clear first before voting on transferability again?
I’m not sure what else to say. I’ve commented on that point three times now. It’s also not up to me, neither is this thread supposed to resolve your point. We can come back to it when we discuss a governance framework and then I’d be curious to hear others‘ opinions too.
I think (almost 100%) this is the investor’s addresses.
I suggest that in subsequent votes (before enable transferability), only guardian and user votes are considered, and investor votes should not be counted.
This is a very serious issue, because the disapproval votes of the two investors in this vote directly exceeded 37.5%, and it is reasonable for this vote and the benefits of investors Clearly relevant, they should shy away from such a vote. Otherwise they can wait until their lot of tokens are unlocked before enabling transferability to sell outright.
Or as Bruce said, votes larger than 2M don’t count.
One of the owner addresses —0xD7Df130531Ef4fADF91Fa16D96fa3C49358A7AD1— of the shared owner safe has a txn on Gnosis Chain for a dAppCon ticket, being one of 35 addresses holding one of these. It was organized by Gnosis DAO.
perhaps we should encourage SAFE team (and ourselves) to label whale accounts if possible (not suggesting doxxing, just contextual info using and ENS domain or something)
I went to look because that makes a lot of sense tbh
but, both of the voters—0xfB2aD9007F2D62a973f71Af206242eE4bD790b2C , 0x7c3d54Be8dD9946dA59feD648bfAD294ae17105E— haven’t claimed and the UI says that they were awarded the tokens
I’m not trying to create any bad situations, but after what has happened with the industry I think it’s paramount that we as a community demand transparency
And this situation appears to be one that could use more transparency
Note that the daily collection of airdrop is about 25，maybe it’s time to make the forum active and discuss. guys, the enthusiasm of the World Cup cannot stop the enthusiasm of the safe token discussion.
