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.
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.
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:
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.