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

[nodeE]

@DefiDebauchery

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 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.

[raynemang]

A little digging shows that the two safe contracts share an owner — which is also a safe contract

1. 0xfB2aD9007F2D62a973f71Af206242eE4bD790b2C
2. 0x7c3d54Be8dD9946dA59feD648bfAD294ae17105E

• Shared owner: 0xc894dCacaCF66d904264e47c08a987e64b48c57C
• GnosisSafeProxy | Address 0xc894dCacaCF66d904264e47c08a987e64b48c57C | Etherscan

1. 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.

• Address 0xD7Df130531Ef4fADF91Fa16D96fa3C49358A7AD1 | GnosisScan : Shared owner
• https://twitter.com/dappcon_berlin : The owner went to this event or needed a special token pass for the event

2. One of the addresses hasn’t done anything: 0x3242071b0b406B6661AF2dE1115CD46567Ab0917

3. One of the other appears to be linked to Gnosis Multisigs: 0x9F7dfAb2222A473284205cdDF08a677726d786A0

• Address 0x9F7dfAb2222A473284205cdDF08a677726d786A0 | Etherscan : Multisig 2
• Address 0x9F7dfAb2222A473284205cdDF08a677726d786A0 | Etherscan : Multisig 3

[theobtl]

@raynemang

My post is currently being withheld from posting though.

Discourse automatically flagged your post as spam (presumably because of the many 0x addresses?). Your post should be visible now.

[raynemang]

Bless you ser, @theobtl! Yeah, could certainly seem like a spam message.

Especially because I’ve mainly just lurked and read the posts on the forum. However, I feel like I shouldn’t stand on the sidelines so much

Seems like a great bunch in here that is concerned over the future of Safe DAO

Love to see it

[qianwan_lv]

I quite agree with you

[raynemang]

I put some more of my conclusions here about the recent vote: Discussion about SafeDAO voting power - #4 by raynemang

[chrismartz]

Thank you for this, i agree

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)

[god]

People chose to delegate their voting power to these addresses man

[RSivakov]

@Daniel Maybe it’s worth recreating a vote? Just for confidence.

[raynemang]

maybe, but I’m not sure about that

seems reasonable enough to assume

EDIT

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

[RSivakov]

If recreate, you don’t have to do the actions to turn the modules on/off. Unpause only

[RSivakov]

Maybe voting should only be “tokens on hand” and “delegated”? Excluding the vesting?

Just idea for discussion.

[raynemang]

That seems like a decent solution

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

[m0byy]

any update?
i think recreating vote could be cool…

[Bruce]

No , project RIP , 2000 users say Yes , 5 users Say NO . Not free token - no freedom .

[Tatum]

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.

[marcinek89xl]

my tokens dissapear when i make next safee in eth to clam then what now my voice is also gone > why ?

[marcinek89xl]

but if something i plan to be part not to throw it …

[RSivakov]

I support this. If we want the snapshot vote to happen after the claim is completed, then we need to create a new proposal in the near future.

@Daniel

this time it is worth creating a proposal without these two points, because because of them some people voted against.

[theobtl]

@RSivakov

this time it is worth creating a proposal without these two points, because because of them some people voted against.

I see where you’re coming from if you trying to improve the proposal, remove controversial parts and optimise it so that it would likely pass in the future.

Although, let me refer back to the reasoning behind including these two pieces:

@0xAA

Due to the fact, that the right of token transfer was limited to the SafeDAO Safe, user and ecosystem airdrop contracts were implemented as modules enabled on the SafeDAO Safe. Once global transferability is enabled, this is not required anymore. The allocation contracts can just be used directly. Removing not required modules from the SafeDAO Safe is just basic security hygiene.

In short, removing this modules makes absolute sense IMO, it has no risks but even reduces risks in the future. Just because these modules won’t be needed anymore and by reducing complexity, we can expect on-chain governance to be more secure.

Do you still see an argument against removing these two modules?

When it comes to what I assume is your intent and finding our how likely it is for a new proposal on enabling transferability to pass in the future, I’d suggest to instead revisit the arguments brought up and get a sense of what the community considers milestones to be met before voting on transferability again. That allows us all to have a much clearer idea on when such a proposal is put up for a vote again, so that we have clarity on that. In the meantime, that would also free up resources to work on other parts of a governance roadmap, such as the constitution, OBRA and other proposals. Does that make sense to you?

I’ve been writing up a new SEP based on these arguments for us to align on such a timeline. It’s almost ready to share, expect it to be live before the community call on Monday.