We understand the excitement around the SAFE token and opportunity for price discovery, but we think the best path for the SafeDAO is to enable transferability later.
The inception of a DAO is a critical time to curate aligned stakeholders and rally the DAO around a shared vision and goals. Our current crop of token holders (e.g. Safe Guardians) is a well-curated set of potential DAO participants; and we believe we should prioritise enhancing their participation instead (e.g. with tools like NotiFi). The Constitution aligning our mission, goals, and principles has also yet to be agreed upon by the DAO.
Hence, we think the best time to enable transferability is once a few minimum viable milestones are met:
Until after the claim deadline so that all eligible and active token holders are included
The Constitution is ratified by initial token holders
The first metagovernance proposal (OBRA) has passed
You people always said: let the initial holders vote, I didnât realize what was wrong with that before, and now I understand that this is actually the best situation for you.
As the initial voting power, users only have about 2.9% voting power, while insiders hold more than 90% of the voting power.
Therefore, voting on various proposals without the transferable token can ensure that the voting results are not determined by the majority of the community members, but always dozens of insiders.
I donât think they want to bring the token to the market, but why was it necessary to give airdrop, if they take these decisions because they are afraid of the market, then I think those who backed them are just listeners, if they are backed, any project will never fear the market. I donât get it, but because of the strange rules of the safe team, it seems that they are very afraid,
the one of the safe team says 2 months is too short, that means they should take more time, but I will tell you that crypto is very first, but if you proceed slowly Go thatâs your failure
Looks that we have to decide this later because of recent market conditions.
I think the next vote timing should be December 28, 2022- the end of claim period, we can wait a month more and see how market going at that time and making more appropriate decision.
Iâm completely sure that make the token transferable now is not a good idea, we actually sitting in the worst bear period now, if the market really become more stable and hopeful, like no new ATL appear and keeping go up for some weeks, then itâs the right time to decide this.
Iâm just talking the market, because this is the only good reason to delay the decision, all other reasons are not convincing enough.
If we think about the market, we donât know if it will be okay even if we delay it for 6 months, the team has passed 1.5 months, itâs not good, we are sitting claiming the token, but this 1.5 months has ended like this, isnât it a big time, and you are saying the bad condition of the market. It has been very bad for some time, hope it will take a few days, so it makes no sense to delay it for 1 month, and the safe project is not a small project that will be afraid of the bear market, their backing is so strong, I think they should be afraid. No, I think they should make a decision about Listong very soon, and the most important thing is to keep a close eye on the token, but there are many projects coming in this bear market, they have made the community happy, but I wonder if the safe team can do it. I think theyâre very smart but theyâre not really that smart, anyway, thatâs what Iâd like to tell them to think about a little more.
I know, Iâm sure that most people want the token transferrable, but the market crash yesterday is a bit unexpected.
We donât need to unpause in the bull market at all, but at least donât unpause in the worst market conditions.
I still think unpause transfer is the top priority for us, this is a basic function of a DAO token, but we can reconsider this in a more stable market timing.
I am not saying that they should list now, they have taken a lot of time, only now it is a matter of listing, it is not right for them to delay so much time, they have introduced token claim option, it is good, but why did they take so much time, if they are wrong, then it is wrong. No, we do many things,
There have been so many talks about speculators here, but in the end you are speculators! It is you who are justified either by the market, or by an early date, or by some other nonsense! Because of you, peopleâs voices mean nothing!
Why did you give out an airdrop? What is the point of a token if 1 person has 1.2kk tokens and the other only 1000? He canât buy more tokens, we canât sell them, whatâs the point? At the moment, the safe is a worthless token that does nothing, and the fact that you are now trying to prevent its birth is very sad.
You say that you proceed from the position of the market? What difference does it make if our task is to ensure the transfer of the token and not to earn you a penthouse !!
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, wonât they bring down the market, while giving tokens, they didnât tell the community how to do it, now they are coming to say whether we will enable token transfer, itâs 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 donât think that those who have more tokens will pass a few votes, because they have more voting power, do you think it is fair,
Iâm not sure I understand your question, but let me try.
When you mention the user airdrop, youâre 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 â if you exclude the 60% treasury allocations â 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. Weâre 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. Wouldnât you agree?
If youâre asking why the Snapshot vote is going how it does, weâll have to look at the macro environment I suppose. Youâre 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 âmake no changes/decide laterâ or even change their previous vote to that, just due to the recent developments around FTX and the ongoing market turmoil.
Sorry I hadnât responded sooner. That being said, itâs 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), itâs very funny for me to watch how funds and other persons vote against the transfer of the token, if you are so smart letâs turn off your safe so that you canât withdraw your ethers and dollars, whatever you say ?
I donât 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!
Iâm sorry that the project is doomed, theobtl, goodbye, itâs 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!
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 doesnât consider the 15% core contributor allocation, however I believe @Theobtl when he says they donât 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, itâs 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 itâs 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.
sir actually you are very successful, you donât 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 investorâs income, but it has nothing to do with the work of builders, as long as they donât plan to sell $SAFE for money, unpause in any kind of market will not affect the development of Safe ecosystem.
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 doesnât want that, they might list with uniswap & cowswap liquidity.
Itâs 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 donât 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 wonât be counted.
The UI has since been fixed, but after I think most people already voted.
