[SEP #5] Redistributing Unredeemed Tokens From User Airdrop Allocation

  • Title: Redistributing Unredeemed Tokens From User Airdrop Allocation
  • Author: Daniel
  • Created: 2023-01-14


This proposal tries to address the unintended imbalance in the distribution of voting power that arose due to 64,4% of the tokens from the user airdrop allocation not being redeemed.

Proposal details

Purpose and Background

Initially, 5% of the total supply of SAFE tokens was allocated towards an airdrop for users:

And the story could have ended here, and there would have been no need for this proposal – if not for 32,200,182 out of 50,000,000 tokens not being redeemed by users:


The purpose of this proposal is now to ensure that the originally planned distribution of voting power between the various stakeholders is achieved to the extent that it is possible.

Types of Allocations

  • Allocation A: Redistribute unredeemed tokens proportionately to all those who previously redeemed their allocated tokens

    (Tokens would be vested over 4 years. Vesting start date is September 1st, 2022. Vested and unvested tokens can be used for voting. The tokens must be redeemed before July 1st, 2023, or they will once again return to the SafeDAO treasury.)

  • Allocation B: Explore other ideas for allocations, including but not limited to setting up a new claim period for those who were eligible for the initial claim but had not redeemed their allocations (“extend claim period”)

    (Voting for Allocation B serves “only” as a signal; a final decision on extending the claim period and/or considering other ideas for allocations requires another SEP.)

Voting options

  • Option 1: Only A, using ⅓ of unredeemed tokens
  • Option 2: Only A, using ⅔ of unredeemed tokens
  • Option 3: Only A, using all unredeemed tokens
  • Option 4: A+B in parallel, using ½ of unredeemed tokens for A and ½ for B
  • Option 5: A+B in parallel, using ⅔ of unredeemed tokens for A and ⅓ for B
  • Abstain
  • Make no changes

(Those are the top 5 choices of the temperature check)

Effects and Impact Analysis

See here for how many additional tokens each address is eligible for if any of the voting options that include Allocation A passes the official vote:

If either Option 4 or 5 receives the most votes, the tokens allocated to B would be considered “set aside” and could be used, for example, for airdrops to L2 Safes, to reward contributors behind public goods, to give those who failed to redeem the original airdrop a second chance, or for other causes that aren’t mentioned here but expand the number of token holders.

However, separate SEPs would have to be written for specific actions to be taken, as voting for Allocation B only has a signaling effect. In response to this signal, hopefully one or more future proposals surface.

Alternative Solutions

Not to have this proposal at all

Without voting on this proposal there would be no clarity around the sentiment of the community when it comes to this topic.

Technical Implementation



Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.


Oh, wow. That’s a lot of unclaimed $SAFE.


I wouldn’t mind seeing more being provided to existing claimants - not for market reasons, but because there seems to be quite a large power imbalance between users and other wallets when it comes to voting. Even though I supported SEP-2’s outcome, I still have yet to understand how some single wallets had millions of tokens in voting power where the average was only a couple of thousand.

Another option would be to allocate the remainder for active alt-chain Safe users, notably BSC and Polygon (and I suppose Gnosis Chain), which have been online for over a year. These were left out of the initial process, and BSC especially helped propel Safe(/Gnosis) adoption.


I like the idea of adding L2s and notable alt-chains

There are a number of safes deployed on Optimism as well


I agree with the first proposal


I think it is appropriate to consider allocating a portion to secure multi-signature wallet addresses created and used on other chains (Polygon, BSC, Arbitrum, Optimism, etc.), which is an important part of a secure multi-signature wallet


To close the voting power gap among the ordinary claimants and giga-wallets, the latter of whom can easily veto anything, I suggest that the 2/3 of the tokens should be allocated to wallets who have already claimed, and the rest should be to form a Safe Grants initiative for the aforementioned developers who add value compared to overall extractors within the expanded ecosystem.


guys literally the first time hearing about SAFEDAO and this airdrop. And I check crypto twitter multiple times a day… I mean it would have been nice if this was either marketed harder or there didn’t exist a deadline.


I like idea for alt-chain/L2 safe creators.
I guess many people had safe on Arbi Poly BSC Opti or whatever but never used one on Ethereum.
I also agree for giving some to existing claimers.
Part of it in treasury also good (can be used later for contributor, educator, program, else)


Hi, for me 1st option is the best, proposition number 4 is also a good idea


The best way to go is #4.

Small scale airdrop sounds good too for exposure. Gitcoin donors/GnosisDAO voters being the best options, in my opinion. Choosing, of course, donors with good cumulative value of donations, to filter farmers. $50 at least. $100 sounds about right to me. Voters with at least 5 individual votes, and top ~90% voting power


Is there a way to claim now?just found out have $300 unclaimed :rofl:, wanna to claim to be the “balance” to Safe family, or I pay the gas fee for direct send?


Options 1 and 4 are both good IMO let the DAO decide , pls don’t try to manipulate voting…


Honestly, I think unclaimed tokens should be claimable by the addresses they were allocated to indefinitely. If they remain unclaimed, so be it.


These are all good options(1,2,4)

These tokens are originally airdropped to users, so they should be redistributed to users, no matter which distribution plan is going to be used, This helps maintain a balance between the different groups.

auryn proposed to extend the token claim period permanently, I don’t think these addresses will eventually claim the airdrop (it can be understood that these tokens are permanently lost/locked), and I don’t think it will make sense to continue to distribute token to these inactive addresses (or addresses that don’t want to claim safe) since they likely won’t be participating in the DAO.


I propose to give 2000 safe tokens to all participants in the forum discussion, because these people have really made contributions to safedao and activated the community.


I prefer option 1 - distributing them to Safe’s that already claimed the SAFE tokens. They have shown an active participation in governance.

For this reason, those who have voted on on-chain governance proposals could also be considered, as they have further shown more active participation in governance.


They have shown an active participation in governance.

I disagree with such a blanket assesment. A sizable portion of people are only airdrop farming.


The original SAFE airdrop was weighted more in favor of active DAOs/users of SAFE.

In any case, the second criteria i.e. if they have proposed/voted on onchain governance processes of SAFE dao can be used to further refine the criteria and eliminate farmers.


I completely forgotten to claim it, there must be a way for those who haven’t claimed it because vast majority of users haven’t, you can’t distribute it to the other users, just extend claiming period