Can we vote? We have waited for 2 months for this.
Hi Daniel, it’s been a week since you said you cleared the schedule to finalize the proposal, so can we start voting this week?
Hi Daniel, i know there is an event at the moment. But did we progress regarding this please ? regards
1 Like
Hello, @ Daniel
man. I want to ask when the 5th proposal can be voted. We have been discussing it for more than one month. It’s time to vote! Thank you for your proposal.
1 Like
Hello, @ Daniel
man. I want to ask when the 5th proposal can be voted. We have been discussing it for more than one month. It’s time to vote! Thank you for your proposal. 
1 Like
Hey,
Before proceeding with this proposal, I decided to do a temperature check since I understand that not everyone (including me) is completely satisfied with the current voting options:
I’ll limit the voting options in the official vote to what gets voted on the most here, and perhaps drop this proposal altogether if there appears to be a clear majority in favor of making no changes.
See below the 11 different voting options (a little confusing, I know, but it should cover all preferences):
Types of Allocations
- Allocation A: Redistribute unredeemed tokens proportionately to all those who previously redeemed their allocated tokens
- 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 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 ⅓ of unredeemed tokens for A and ⅔ for B
- Option 5: A+B in parallel, using ½ of unredeemed tokens for A and ½ for B
- Option 6: A+B in parallel, using ⅔ of unredeemed tokens for A and ⅓ for B
- Option 7: Only B, using ⅓ of unredeemed tokens
- Option 8: Only B, using ⅔ of unredeemed tokens
- Option 9: Only B, using all unredeemed tokens
- Abstain
- Make no changes
Note: The voting system is Approval voting, meaning you can select (approve) any number of choices, each selected choice will receive equal voting power, i.e. if you select two choices, each choice will receive the total voting power from you.
6 Likes
Good temp check, but I think there should be at least 10m votes to ensure the result of temp check vote aligned with the real situation, I remembered that we did a temp check in SEP#2, but the result was finally quite different.
3 Likes
@Daniel thanks for all of your work on this! I know it’s a lot of folks asking questions and demanding your time
2 Likes
“Option A, Using All” seems to be the front runner based on initial feedback from the Snapshot
1 Like
Right, that option is clearly leading as of now. We should keep in mind though that the total number of participating SAFE is less than 1M, while previous token-related proposals like SEP 2 and SEP 3 had 32M and 15M SAFE participating, respectively. I assume that there is a strong bias in this vote towards voters who support giving more tokens to those who have already claimed (which includes themselves), but voters who support giving more tokens to others/new user groups or have no further airdrop at this time at all may not feel the need to vote now and wait for the Snapshot poll.
2 Likes
Even if a few people have different opinions, we should implement the wishes of most people in the community, right? This is the real dao. If the result is determined by several wallet addresses with a large number of safe tokens, it can only show that safedao is a virtual thing, and cannot promote the governance of safedao at all, which makes the community seriously doubt safedao again. For the sake of safedao’s health, I hope that the result will not disappoint the community like the original SEP 2
4 Likes
you mean that 2 mystery addresses who own 12m tokens？I think they will show up at last minute and pass your ideas.
5 Likes
Option 4 seems well measured: A+B in parallel, using ⅓ of unredeemed tokens for A and ⅔ for B
- It rewards members who followed the original claim period’s rules without giving them “too much” additional token power.
- Provides a majority portion of tokens to help further decentralize the number of users receiving SAFE which seems important for the long-term health of the SafeDAO.
3 Likes
I’ve voted on Option 2 & Option 3.
I don’t think many who didn’t claim in time will become active governors - as this action was minimal and had enough time IMO. With the initial user distribution being relatively small given the timeframe of the snapshot (the start of Gnosis Safe until late last year), I think it’s okay to distribute most left-over tokens to initial claimers.
I don’t think a combination of A + B (or any inclusion of Option B) is productive, as the " alternatives" are not specified. Therefore, completing the first contributor reward distribution and returning anything left to the DAO for potential future distributions is the best next step.
6 Likes
I agree with you. I think all or all of them should be allocated to the active addresses that have been received, which are originally airdropped to users. The airdrop of addresses such as the future l2 layer or the Gitcoin donation should be allocated from the development foundation address, not from 50000000. The share of safe foundation is too large.
5 Likes
I don’t think many who didn’t claim in time will become active governors
This is a fair point @LuukDAO. With some form of option B (Explore other ideas for allocations), it is not specifically stating that tokens will be allocated to “extend” claims for those who did not claim originally.
For instance, if any form of option B passes, the next step is to decide what to do with these tokens. One potential route is to apply the same parameters from the original snapshot of time to a new snapshot of time. For example, a new snapshot could be Safe account usage from the end of the last snapshot threshold up until now. This second snapshot of time is significant because the amount of activity farming is likely low due to no token claim being expected after the first snapshot time period ended.
This could help improve the diversity of token holders and future decentralization.
4 Likes
This is a really important point. Option A basically is the “lazy” approach (the laziest approach would be to do nothing with these tokens). Option B allows for some nuance. We could, for instance, drop a portion to those who have actually voted on snapshot (if we wanted to attract more governors) or drop a portion to those who have been active in forums/discord (if we want to attract more contributors), or (as @adamhurwitz.eth stated in his post) drop a portion to those who have been using Safe recently.
Or we could do all 3…and more! It’s for this reason I voted for Option 9 (All B)
4 Likes
Through the voting of sep2 and sep3, it can be seen that the voting rights of safe have been controlled by two mysterious addresses, and the community has no right to speak. The number of safe voting addresses of 1,000 people is not as large as that of two people. The safe team seems to be I also acquiesced in this situation. Although I want to participate in the governance of safe, it seems that the opinions of ordinary voters are not important.
Suǒyǐ bǎ safe fēnpèi jǐ huóyuè de rén hěn zhòngyào, dànshì bù zhīdào zhège tí’àn zuìhòu de zǒuxiàng, yīnwèi chí yǒu 1200 wàn gè safe dì dìzhǐ zài wéihù zìjǐ de lìyì. Xiànzài kàn qǐlái tāmen bìng bùxiǎng ràng shèqū huòdé gèng duō de dài bì, yě zài zǔzhǐ dài bì de zhuǎnyí
So it is very important to allocate safe to active people, but I don’t know the final direction of this proposal, because the addresses holding 12 million safe are protecting their own interests. Now it looks like they don’t want the community to get more tokens and are also blocking token transfers
11 Likes
Hi! When we can begin the official vote? Should we wait for another month?
3 Likes