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

DAO participants have legal clarity and personal liability of DAO participants as well as other protected parties is reduced.

I’d also love to hear some more Safe Guardians (and other community members) coming forward.

Sure, I’ll bite.

I’d say — at risk of saying the quiet part out loud — my general take on the token being nontransferable during the distribution stage seems like it’s primarily designed as a form of legal arbitrage (by a pre-existing team) to not get hammered by any regulators that aren’t too keen on airdrops these days (“we the team didn’t do the airdrop – the community decided to unlock the token!”). It also limits valuation on the secondary market, which may or may not be helpful to some folks when filing taxes this year. The token’s been distributed so these objectives are more or less met. In truth I don’t know if this was explicitly intended by airdrop planers (the team) but this is a personal interpretation of events.

I don’t see how a participation agreement is going to offer any extended legal protections (or legal clarity, for that matter) to folks given the excessive CFTC/SEC aggression. IMHO the best and most effective legal strategy in 2022 would be to exclude US persons from any DAO governance whatsoever (alternatively: just not ever have a token that US persons touch). Recent opinions drafted by US regulatory bodies are pretty clearly done in bad faith – (my personal opinion is that) they aren’t going to care very much about whether or not a participation agreement was drafted prior to the DAO token being transferable. They’ll just find another “DAO-technicality” to call a nail in order to swing their hammer at something they want to control…

I’m meandering a bit so let me express a clear point: a transferable token is always going to bear risk. No amount of legal work by a DAO, or a team, or “delegates of a DAO” is going to fix that risk because we’re not dealing with rational, well-minded regulators. So I don’t personally see this as a valid reason not to issue a (transferable) token.


It is recommended to lock up because there will be a large-scale sell-off of governance tokens, especially the hundreds of thousands of SAFEs that the past 29 hunters have earned for nothing. If they are opened, they will hurt the development of the safe and hurt the early investment institutions. The purpose of this proposal is to open the transfer transaction savvy Thieves can’t wait to sell SAFE

Stop spam.
I see many different accounts with similar names to yours complaining about their addresses being identified as sybils in community challenge discussion (saurabh_sahu, roland_songco, satyam_singh, hazell_navva, mklotsa_okmlitsa) and spam frequently in different posts, bringing sybil attack to the governance forum.
people like you don’t deserve any tokens, you just use a lot of fake accounts for your own malicious purposes.
I didn’t hate sybil attackers before because I didn’t think it would affect me if they just got some more tokens.
But I realize now that you guys are not only greedy to defraud more tokens and are the main force of dump, but also like to influence DAO decisions with fake addresses/accounts, you are the cancer of crypto.
Fk all sybil attackers.


If you want to lock up, what is the purpose of issuing tokens? This is just your selfish idea.

In addition, this is the result of labor obtained by the rules. If you care about others’ selling or not selling, remember that this is a decentralized free market, and no one can say the final word. This will make the whole safe ecosystem inactive, or even retrogressive. Only by allowing the circulation of safe tokens can more people participate in, and more projects participate in, safe. This is a healthy ecology.


Keep in mind, even those with 20k SAFE may require multiple individuals to agree on the proposal as they need to confirm the transaction to bring it to snapshot. Not only does it limit who can fully participate, it limits the flexibility of the DAO.


I’d rather wait until the SAFE claiming period ends before unpausing the token contract. There are benefits to waiting, and I highly doubt that the SafeDAO will progress to a mature state by 28 December 2022.

Inevitably, people will look to sell their airdrop and some people will be looking to buy SAFE tokens to hold or to participate in governance. However, there’s merit in waiting to unpause the contract, with the main benefits being for those who have yet to claim their SAFE tokens.

I agree with the points that @lukas has highlighted, as well. SAFE holders and those who want to act as contributors in SafeDAO should align on SEP#1 before initiating any other votes. I don’t see a need to rush this discussion along, and it would be prudent to get a wide array of feedback on this proposal.

On a related note: @lukas, can the Governance Module be used for signalling votes that are non-binding? After a period of time passes, it might be worthwhile to initiate a signalling vote on Snapshot to determine how the community feels about moving forward on this proposal. After reading through SEP#1 and the draft agreement, I’m not sure that signalling votes are outlined or mentioned. Clarity on this point would be helpful :slightly_smiling_face:


Yeah nah, we’ll see what happens when it’s put up for a vote, my guesses are those will be in favor of early unlocks. Waiting for the claiming period to end isn’t suffice regardless of the market condition(s). Those who wish to sell will, so keeping it locked only postpones the inevitable.

On that note I’m for unlocking early.

Or maybe we wait for a specific threshold to be claimed (15-20%).


I’m in favor of delaying an unlock until there is sufficient slowing of claims. We want to ensure that more users who were early users are able to participate in these discussions. Does that mean wait until the claim period is expired? I’m not sure - but I do think this discussion should be delayed until there is a solid base of claims and thus delegated tokens.

I also agree that we should attempt to set some goals for the DAO in advance of driving the unlock mostly around setting up the long term focus for the DAO - the goal of the token is to engage users for participation in governance without some sense of initial goals it will be harder to focus on the public good that Safe brings without token speculators entering the discussion to manipulate toward price appreciation. (It’s inevitable this occurs, but would be best to get the early foundational layers set before).


Yes . I think we need a transferable token as it was with optimism, community members should be able to receive the reward and take advantage of it. Also, other users should have the right to be able to buy votes, this will help the development of our common cause with you! If the token is non-transferable, then the demand and interest in the project may subside, we need to be a full-fledged DAO. As Daniel said.


I’m for the proposal of enabling transferability


I think it should be fair to treat a proposal as a pure “temperature check” proposal by making clear in the proposal description that, no matter the outcome of the proposal, no change will be conducted. But might actually be an interesting idea to explore to have a designated SEP outlining/standardising these types of proposals.


I also don’t understand why we create vesting? If the token cannot be transferred, it has no price, why keep it for 4 years? I think that the community should listen to reality. If we want to be called DAO, we must have a TOKEN, and a token is something that cannot be taken away and can be transferred.

Otherwise, only 50% DAO is obtained. Moreover, we must motivate people, as well as attract new people interested in our development, without the Real Token it will be impossible.

People should receive rewards for participating in the project, be able to buy $Safe tokens to make decisions or suggest ideas. Few users have received 20k or more SAFE tokens in order to offer anything. And without this, it turns out that only a few people, including me, will become permanent initiators of ideas. But new people are always needed, otherwise it is a path to nowhere. And if new people can’t buy our token = won’t get the right to vote and can’t contribute to our community, then it turns out we can end up badly.

PS I also have more than 20 thousand safe tokens and before I make an idea about unlocking I want to hear your opinion on my comment. I see that many, like me, want to get a full-fledged DAO together we are POWER .


Dear , Users . I think we lost time every day chat in thread . I think we need give our voice in SNAPSHOT .

My dao voting - Snapshot


To be clear: I have no involvement in putting this on Snapshot, nor do I support it at this stage.

I mean, doing this now also is not in accordance with the initial governance setup which requires a proposal to be in Phase 1, while this proposal draft I’ve made is still in Phase 0.

I don’t know if I haven’t made myself clear enough, but I don’t intend to move this proposal to Phase 1 before SEP #1 has passed. In fact, I wanted to wait until the end of this month, so that the community has some additional time to align on the goals/mission of SafeDAO.

So if someone wants to have a proposal about enabling transferability right now, and not near the end of October, please write another proposal and post it directly in the SEP category to initiate Phase 1, and then post it after 6 days on Snapshot – because I won’t move this proposal before 3 conditions are met:

  • A decision about SEP #1 was made
    ** Status: Not put on Snapshot, but should be imminent **
  • $SAFE claims calmed down (daily average < 100)
    ** Status: Probably happens within this or next week **
  • A discussion around community alignment on goals/mission of SafeDAO has taken place (not necessarily by the means of a SEP)
    ** Status: / **

You look too suspicious…
Hope those who see this be vigilant, I don’t see any transaction in the wrap-safe contract, and the funds to deploy the contracts come from Aztec (untraceable), which looks like a scam.

1 Like

Its you right , but this DAO . I think people need voting , yoy may dont think for this , Its life) .

p.s :

I believe that people have the right to receive what is called a token in full. If we have some kind of token that is just lying around, then no one will waste their time on voting, ideas, and so on. Optimism gave people a token that many exchanged for money, but has it become worse? The community continues to grow.

Here I see that people are just playing for time, but we live in a very fast world. What is bad about the fact that the token will become free, gain fans, value?! You could reply to me but chose to ignore my message, I decided to take action 1 and offer my idea and vision for the DAO to the community. If we want to be called DAO, then we must enable everyone, without exception, to participate in the process. Without unlocking the token, this is impossible, we get a closed club. And this is no longer DAO.


It is a bit rushed to initiate this vote now…

But yes, this proposal has been discussed for a week and has different options set according to the opinions of different community members, so it is reasonable.

To be honest, I also hope that the token can be transferred as soon as possible, I see some DAOs/teams discussing how to use the $SAFE they got (including me and my friends, we jointly manage a SAFE), if these tokens are not transferable, then these discussions will be meaningless.


Yes . i delete my Voting for now , i create my thread few later . But i think work is done either quickly and efficiently, or long and poorly . We may wait more 1 year but for what ?

I just mean looks suspicious.
but it would be amazing if the contract you deployed could actually implement this functionality (Wrap safe to nft, and transfer ownership by transfer this NFT).
It would be more convincing if you could create a safe and demonstrate the process with your deployed contract.

Hi Bruce, I think at the earliest we need to wait until SEP#1 is passed before voting on enabling transferability, although I would also like token to be transferable, but I think it would be better to enable transferability with explicit participation agreement.

1 Like