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

It is true that too many people have forgotten, and it would be unfair to erase the rewards of those who have participated in the project just because they forgot

1 Like

I thought that there would be a plan for subsequent users to increase their Airdrop according to the new plan, but it turns out that they will increase their number equally according to the old air drop plan :sweat_smile: :sweat_smile: :sweat_smile:

1 Like

Thank you for the outline of the options @Karo! I enjoy reading your concise and clear summaries.

Option 4

I agree that Option 4 to reward existing claimed accounts and further distribute tokens to potentially new accounts is a balanced approach.

Decentralizing SafeDAO increases the total value of the Safe ecosystem. Even if you are not as concerned with decentralization intrinsically, I’d encourage those voting to ask themselves, Would I rather own a small amount of something very valuable or a large amount of something without much value if the ecosystem fails to decentralize?

The initial unclaimed accounts gain tokens and may not participate in governance

The SafeDAO can vote after this proposal to distribute to a new set of users based on a different time frame with the same qualification parameters deemed important for the initial airdrop. Option 4 does not set any stance extending the original claim.

SafeDAO can decentralize through making SAFE tokens transferable

This is valid. SafeDAO should also decentralize distribution of the token as much as it can to begin with as well to give itself a better foundation when transferability is enabled later on.


I don’t want to discuss these meaningless things, because we have spent a lot of time on this simple redistribution issue for several months, and still have no results. It’s really disappointing. “The real decentralization should be discussed after the tokens are circulated. I hope to vote as soon as possible this week and seize the time to confirm the allocation. We can then discuss issues related to token usage and open transfer.”. I have to say that efficiency is too low now!


shall we begin the vote?

1 Like

This proposal [SEP #5] Redistributing Unredeemed Tokens From User Airdrop Allocation has moved to phase 2 for a Snapshot vote:


Start date of vote: Mar 22, 2023, 3:01 PM
End date of vote: Mar 29, 2023, 3:01 PM UTC


The formal vote has not yet taken place, but I would still like to say that a lengthy and inefficient discussion in the consuming community may consume the community’s consensus on DAO if the temperature detection results and the formal vote differ again


i agree 3 it’s more important

Not necessarily. Unfortunately, Option B is the only way that non-Ethereum Safes get considered.
Safes on alt-chains are an equally important part of the Safe ecosystem and should be reflected as such.

The SafeDAO can vote after this proposal to distribute to a new set of users based on a different time frame with the same qualification parameters deemed important for the initial airdrop. Option 4 does not set any stance extending the original claim.

Like excluding Safes that haven’t touched the platform between the claim transaction and this message? :wink:

1 Like

That could absolutely be the case, we will see in seven days.

A problem I see with temperature checks is that you can never be sure that the outcome will represent the outcome of the final, official vote. There’s a chance that there’s always some sort of selection bias among those who choose to vote on the temperature check. If you care a lot about the proposal and/or if you’d like to add a new option, you’ll probably make the effort to pay attention to the proposal and vote in the temperature check. If the proposal isn’t important to you, chances are you won’t spend more time on it than needed and just vote in the final vote – not in the temperature check. Based on these assumptions, temperature check votes are not meaningful.

@v3naru recently shared a related comment with some good points in this thread, I’d recommend that we continue the discussion about temperature checks there.

Lmao, the fact that why temperature check results differ from final vote is several whales control the vote, most community members’ votes won’t count, you don’t even have the guts to tell the truth.

Team just symbolically give users a pitiful airdrop and hand over the decisive power to whales.

$SAFE is just a token to get money for the team, not a real governance token, few understand. I am 1000% sure the result of this vote is still determined by less than 5 whales.

To be honest, I’d rather the team cancel the SAFE tokens and take back all the airdrops, rather than using this poor voting power to deceive users to participate in meaningless governance.


"I don’t want to see the results you mentioned, and I believe the community doesn’t want to see them either. Let’s wait and see. If that’s the case, Safedao won’t go far, it’s just formalism. We won’t participate in discussions and voting anymore, because it doesn’t make any sense!


If the whale becomes the enemy of the majority, and the whale controls the final voting results, I will no longer participate in the governance of safe. Although this is a difficult choice, it does prove that community governance is invalid, and the whale controls everything. , perhaps Safe should give up Dao, and become a company that is more in the interests of the Safe team and investors.


Clearly greed outpowered.

1 Like

Hold on that point ! Maybe they will send TWO white riders at last minute @theobtl .

Hold on that point ! Maybe they will send TWO white knights at last minute @theobtl


:joy: Maybe more , but definitely with safe!

From experience, whale voting is likely to determine the final result rather than the majority of users, so it is necessary to invite whales to voice their opinions on the proposal in the community.

Yes, the proposal that the community spends months discussing can only take a few minutes for the Giant Whale to reverse the majority vote. This is not a dao, it is a waste of time, and it is unfair to all participants in the proposal discussion.

1 Like