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

If, as @MicahZoltu said, this vote was affected by safe’s new UI update, is there any reason to think that the vote for SEP#2 is not complete?

According to @Georg_Greenfield 's data analysis, there are still about 160M of votes that have not been voted, not sure if it is a data error or this part of the votes did not participate in the vote or abstained or was affected by the new UI?

As far as I’m concerned, if this poll is really affected by the new UI, maybe void this poll and reopen a 7-day SEP#2 poll to include all voters unaffected by other factors, regardless of the outcome How, may be more convincing to the community and more legitimate. Please correct me if I’m wrong,

1 Like

That’s a valid question.

Are you sure this is related to the recent UI update from a few days ago?

According to the Snapshot team, there was an old UI (Factory v1.0.0 ) not supported, however Factory v1.1.1 and v1.3 were always supported. As of yesterday, this bug is fixed. Currently, it is unclear to me how significantly this influenced the vote, if at all.

Or are we talking about two different things here?

Let’s collect some evidence but in case of doubt, the vote should certainly be repeated IMO. That being said, I’d strongly suggest that we find some way of doing a temperature check before just reuploading the proposal for this reason. As you all know, the macro environment changed dramatically and seems to have changed the minds of many. Since the questions is not if but when we’ll vote on this proposal again, we might as well postpone it to a later time that is subject to a few conditions.

Let’s discuss these conditions after the Snapshot vote has ended but several people had suggested some in this thread or on Twitter, e.g. waiting for the airdrop period to end, waiting for a better market environment, waiting for SafeDAO to ratify fundamental proposals (e.g., participation agreement, constitution, governance framework, funding/grants framework), waiting for SafeDAO to have a clearer idea of its revenue streams and long-term financial sustainability, etc.

Again, I don’t know the number of people who couldn’t vote due to the UI bug, but as you know from other DAOs, it is quite likely that those people did not vote for other reasons. Most DAOs have a voter participation rate of 1-10%. I also know from anecdotal/individual feedback that some token holders did not quite feel ready to participate, e.g. because they had not set up internal processes in their organization to evaluate and decide on proposals. It is unfortunate that only about 19M out of 180M potential tokens were used for voting, although I’m not surprised given past experiences in other DAOs and the early state of SafeDAO itself.


I need delete snapshot and load new ?

Hello @theobtl ,I agree with you, the fact that a lot of people have opinions on this vote, I think we do need a re-vote.

But it is worth noting that before this market crash, I remember that the ratio of enable and make no changes was 70%/30%, but after the FTX event/market crash, some people changed their vote.

I am very Sure that most people have concerns about current market conditions, there are undoubtedly many benefits to enabling transferability in itself, but in such bad market conditions, many people’s votes will be affected by the market conditions, instead of considering the benefits of enable transferability.

To put it simply, I do not recommend re-voting immediately under the current market conditions, I recommend watching for a while to see how the market is going, and if the market becomes stable/healthy, we will consider re-voting, which can avoid macro market factors impact on voting.

As for the temperature check vote you mentioned, I think we can do a forum poll first, and then we can also do a temperature check vote in snapshot to decide this matter.

  • Re-Vote
  • No Re-Vote

0 voters

  • Re-Vote Immediately
  • Re-Vote After Claim Period(12/28)

0 voters

It’s about more than a month away from the end of the claim period, I think it’s enough for us to observe the market situation, if the market becomes healthier, I think it’s a more reasonable choice to vote on 12/28/22


Hey friend, don’t delete vote as it’s a formal vote.

If we need a new vote, we can create a new one later.

A DAO should be more flexible, not fixed by rigid rules, and we can negotiate this proposal instead of meaningless quarrels


@Bruce No need to delete this proposal, that’s not even possible once voting has started. This is still a valid SEP, as it stands.

Let’s first let this proposal voting period finish. Then we’ll probably have a long crypto winter to discuss next steps and see when the community would like to bring this up to a vote again. I don’t think a Discourse poll here would be representative, would it? Might be a good idea to give it time to review the comments already made in this thread, posted on Twitter, the comments next to Snapshot votes and being it to the next community calls happening every two weeks.

Don’t do “community call” via zoom, you should know that most community members don’t use it.

If you really want a community call, use Discord or Twitter Space.


That’s helpful feedback, we were torn between Zoom & YouTube, Discord and Twitter Spaces. If you have more feedback about the previous community calls, let me know!


What ? How ? 10 days its people not vote and now ?) theobtl , i dont have words …

1 Like

I’ve voted “Make no changes” on the proposal based on the following thoughts - as outlined in my Delegate Thread:

  1. I believe in the potential of Protocol Owned Liquidity, where a DAO actively holds and manages some of the Liquidity of its native token (and other tokens it deems valuable) to benefit from the market-making rewards and influence that comes with it. I see the moment of unpausing the token as a good opportunity to establish Protocol owned Liquidity. Depending on the assets that SafeDAO will control in the following months, I suggest SafeDAO host a Gnosis Auction or Balancer LBP right before tokens unlock to A. Have price exploration take place before tokens unlock B. To gain some counter assets that can be used to continue LPing SAFE after unpausing.

After the unpausing, I suggest creating a liquidity pool on Balancer with the gained assets from the Auction/LBP as many allies of Safe (such as GnosisDAO) already hold a substantial amount of veBAL and can help increase rewards to and depth of a SAFE pool on Balancer. There are also ways to further enhance returns and depth of the pool by integrating it into the Aura system - which I think would be valuable to SafeDAO.

  1. Next to the lost opportunity to gain PoL - I am worried about the current market conditions and the pressures it may create. As many stakeholders are down substantially, they may be forced to liquidity share of their SAFE tokens. I suggest unlocking in a less volatile market to allow stakeholders to make well-thought decisions about whether they hold on to their SAFE tokens or not.
  2. Finally, I think unpausing after the claim window closes is better - as it provides more clarity to stakeholders that want to come into the SAFE ecosystem about circulating supply and the number of tokens held by each stakeholder group.

I would suggest continuing this conversation - discussing whether we want and can host an Auction/LBP and ensuring all stakeholders (including investors and possible exchanges) are set before we unpause the token.


I’ve never seen any project claiming to be a public good that allocates so little voting power (2.9%) to users and then allocates a lot of voting power to investors and guardians at token launch.

The total voting power of all users participating in this vote is probably not as much as this 8M voter (I think this should be an investor).

For most products, voting power will not be allocated to investors if the initial investor tokens are not unlocked. And Safe Team gives investors the most voting power from the start, I don’t understand what’s the point of investors’ tokens being unlocked in July next year, investors can veto all proposals to enable token transferability before July next year.

Acknowledge that this is a centralized dictatorship, not a DAO.

1 Like

Seeing this kind of voting, I think it is an insult to users, if you think users are not important, you can not airdrop, instead of letting insiders play with users like pets.

1 Like

how much token safe you have?

My understanding is that there are two bugs:

  1. If your safe was created with factory v1.0.0 your vote won’t count.
  2. If you used the new Safe UI (before it was fixed) your vote won’t count.

(2) has since been fixed, but I don’t know that (1) has.

1 Like

He has about 190k tokens, I think someone like him deserves more voting power, he knows if and when to enable transferability, and provided a specific plan, much better than those who hold a lot of voting power but can’t even provide a convincing reason.

That’s right, the result of this vote is not important now, this is an unfair vote.

theobtl](Profile - theobtl - Safe Community Forum)

I believe that the vote was dishonest, since there was a BAG. Whether it affected the final result or not, the fact that the process was broken.

My suggestion is to start a new vote after the token claims are spent on December 28th. On December 29, people will be able to vote and in the new year 23, the token can be unpaused. I think it would be fair, what do you say?

Also, my opinion (only opinion) is to exclude people who have more than 2 million tokens, because 2000 people with 1000 tokens can create 2 million tokens and only 1 will create 8. We do not have the ability to buy tokens so that we can talk about honesty, and if this person continues to use the amount of his tokens to lobby for his interests, it will be nonsense! This is what we all talked about, GLOBAL DICTATORY when in the hands of a couple of people the key to control the DAO.

These makes sense to me :slightly_smiling_face:

disappointing vote, don’t know how could things going like this…

What’s the point of governance if voting only takes a few people to decide?

Like 2 people over 50% voting rights?