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

Okey , i listen to members , wait sep #1

We will continue deliberating on this even in the next ten years if possible in the name of letting the community have some additional time to align on the on the goals/mission of SAFEDAO… The votooooorrrr!!! I suggest they should just enable immediate transferability and move on… All these trolling won’t matter in heaven. My 2 cents!!! We’re just shouldering an unnecessary issue IMO.

2 Likes

i don’t see why waiting until #1 proposal has passed to initiate the process of formalizing the 2nd.

i think the community is engaged and knowledgeable enough to handle concurrent votes.

3 Likes

They are just playing for time…nothing else!!! It’s obvious

1 Like

Yes , i think we lost time .Unlocking token dont give trouble DAO or users . Its normal process .
But few people here think we need lock token and wait , but what we wait ? If this trash token okey , trash dont need price , people , its T-R-A-S-H . If we normal token , we need give people transfer and price . We DAO or no . Not 50% Dao .

2 Likes

Have to disagree. I think it’s important that the SafeDAO community agrees on [SEP #1] SafeDAO Participation Agreement before conducting this vote.

As @Daniel has pointed out above, this is still in Phase 0, as it’s just a discussion. In order to move toward a vote, it would need to be moved to an SEP.

While I understand some SAFE holders have a preference to unpause the token contract, I do not see any reason to move to an SEP and execute a vote before SEP#1 is put up for a vote. This isn’t a time sensitive issue, and it’s important to come together as a community and reach consensus on the participation agreement.

I’ve shared my thoughts above, but I support @Daniel’s preference to keep this discussion open until the end of the month, so those who claim their SAFE and begin to review and contribute to the forum can weigh in and share their views on unpausing the token contract.

4 Likes

Why we not make have freedom token ?

I see no reason waiting till EOM… We’ve got 6k+ claims already and just a minute handy people in here… Well, let’s wait. Let’s say 20 or more people may join in here.

3 Likes

Can vested tokens be used for voting now?

Sure! Vested token gives voting power :100:

2 Likes

I support the proposal to enable portability

Like you said, everyone here is spam

Whether it is a hunter or an airdrop farmer, they are all waiting to unlock the transaction and sell the governance Token

Whether you’ll sell, gift, buy or hold, 'tis a decision only you can make, fren.

1 Like

No, I think you’re missing something, dude

Selling for profit is one thing but giving people like you who went beyond reasonable level to farm $SAFE token with hundreds of addresses but later got caught by “The 29 Protective Safe Hunter Squad” a chance to have a SAY on the governance forum by selling some amount of token to you is another

If you would like to voice out on the SAFE governance, please wait for the token to get listed and buy some $SAFE but right now, you can only fight those 29 Protective Hunters, you have zero(0) voting power to decide what happens yet.

4 Likes

There are a lot of great comments coming in and it’s going to be a while before iIgo through all of them.

  • There is already indirect ways to transfer the token: The token is actually not fully non-transferable. Because the token owner, which is this Safe account , can transfer SAFE. By giving an ERC-20 approval from an external account to this Safe, it would even be possible to transfer SAFE not directly held by that Safe. So this means there would be options to continue doing distributions or in other ways transfer SAFE using SEPs.

I really like the idea of approving the transfer/distribution of $SAFE via SEP’s as it allows the DAO to invite users or DAO’s to participate.

1 Like

Today ross (LexDAO / Kali, former core dev @ Sushi) set up a “SafeDAO :thermometer: Check” Snapshot space.

The first temperature check you can find there is about unpausing the token contract and thus enabling transferability.

Both Ross and I would greatly appreciate it if some community members here could take the time to vote. While there have been quite a lot of messages here in favor of unpausing the token contract immediately, it’s unclear if this positive sentiment can actually translate into votes.

If a meaningful amount of votes are cast, this temperature check could be a valuable preliminary data point, and in case of overwhelming support for unpausing the token contract, I would move this proposal to Phase 1 without further delay, making sure that it’s ready to be voted on after SEP #1.

https://snapshot.org/#/safegov.eth/proposal/0xe72815c4eef26024868ee77af637c96ad0b844df4957b969d8ca04fca67094f7

11 Likes

Well done, Daniel, you are professional and cautious in promoting this proposal.

I just checked the airdrop claim data (less than 100 claims a day has lasted for many days, and it can be considered that the current safe holder is stabilizing and meets the conditions for snapshot voting).

And the temperature check vote shows that almost everyone wants the token transfer unpause (99.72% voted for, 0.28% voted against, 435 people voted for, 2 people voted against), now is time to move the discussion to the SEP stage.

I think the previous voting option setting is very good (unpause immediately after vote/ unpause after claim period/ make no change), and now SEP#1 has entered the snapshot vote, you can write the proposal according to the format of SEP#1.

4 Likes

Are we moving this to SEP level or not, please :question: @Daniel :person_shrugging:

might u be able to put that claim data into a dune dashboard? would like to see them myself.

1 Like