I have read the Airdrop contract, which was well-designed by @rmeissner. I believe we can use the same contract to redistribute the unredeemed SAFE tokens.
Here’s a draft process for setting up the Airdrop contract to redistribute unredeemed tokens:
Deploy a new Airdrop contract. When deploying the contract, we need to set the redeemDeadline. According to the Allocation A in SEP #5, the tokens should be redeemed before July 1st, 2023. Therefore, we should probably set the value as 1688255999 (July 1st, 2023 11:59:59 PM (GMT)).
Initialize the new Airdrop Contract. This requires the poolManager to call initializeRoot() to set the new Merkle Root.
Claim unredeemed tokens from the old Airdrop contract. This can be done by calling the claimUnusedTokens() function by poolManager.
Send unredeemed tokens to the new Airdrop contract.
The reason we are not able to reuse the old Airdrop contract instance is that redeemDeadline cannot be reset after the contract is deployed.
In addition to the smart contract, we will need support from both the backend and frontend. The backend needs to provide the token amount and Merkle Proof as inputs of redeem() to the frontend. The frontend needs to provide the UI for Safe users to check their eligibility and call redeem() of the Airdrop contract.
There are only about 27 days left before the redemption deadline on July 1st, 2023, so it sounds unrealistic. The original vesting start date is September 1st, 2022. I think we need to agree on a new start date and end date. I suggest we shift the start date to July 1st, 2023, and the end date to April 1st, 2024.
Please let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks!
This deadline is unfortunately not optimal, and a relict of the original plan to add an onchain executable component to the proposal, which due to the multitude of different voting options was later discarded – but the delay this would cause was not foreseeable from my side and therefore I did not modify it. That was certainly an unfortunate decision, for which I must also apologize.
I personally don’t see anything against extending the redemption deadline. Since SEP #5 in its final form constitutes a signal to the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, it is at the discretion of the SEF to make changes to the specified vesting start dates and redemption deadlines. However, I think this is more of a formality as it doesn’t seem to be in the interest of SAFE token holders to have them vote a second time on the same proposal.
At the last community call I heard that at least from the side of the SEF this proposal is not forgotten. Theo has meanwhile, as far as I’m familiar with this, taken a career break and thus the person who probably had the broadest knowledge about this proposal is no longer present. This has certainly not helped to ensure the implementation of this proposal in a timely manner.
Hi @adamhurwitz.eth, I have read your response at How to Claim Vested Tokens?. I would like to provide more clarification. My understanding is that we can utilize the existing smart contract code to do the redistribution of unclaimed SAFE tokens, without requiring new implementations. However, we would need to deploy a new smart contract with the appropriate settings to incorporate the new vesting schedule.
I know @1sla.eth@Andre are still doing their possible best to catch up with past arrangements but I won’t still mind to hear if the team is still interested in getting this important proposal executed as jointly decided upon.
3 months were spent to get this proposal finalised on Snapshot and we’ve been on another 3 months to see it executed by the technical team of SafeDAO.
I think this is the first proposal that will that will require action triggered from the technical team of SafeDAO…
…if this is taking forever to be acted upon, isn’t this a signal to members of the DAO not to waste their precious time having long discussion on proposals that will require the technical team to get something done for the DAO?!
Even before @theobtl left, the last time he or any Safe team speaks on this proposal was 2 months ago.
What are the plans being made to ensure time spent on this proposal are not being wasted❓
Hey everyone, as mentioned in our last Safe Community Call #9 we’re moving full steam ahead with the implementation of SEP #5. Here’s an important update from the Safe Ecosystem Foundation.
Concerning the timeline, Safe’s core contributors are currently diligently handling the technical aspects and the start of the redemption period is expected to be July 27, 2023.
In terms of the redemption deadline, the original proposal specified July 1, 2023. The Safe Ecosystem Foundation is reinterpreting the redemption deadline in SEP #5 to 3 months post-redemption start (effectively moving it to October 27, 2023). This is approximately the same time frame between the Snapshot vote, March 29, 2023, and the initial deadline of July 1, 2023 (94 days). This adjustment preserves the proposal’s executability and does not require the need for another proposal changing the deadline.
As steward of SafeDAO, the Safe Ecosystem Foundation exercises its right to implement proposals in a commercially reasonable manner and to interpret proposals in line with the proposal’s intent. We believe this solution balances an efficient approach and the objective of the deadline to have a cutoff date for the redemption. Just to clarify, the Safe Ecosystem Foundation intends to interpret proposals only in exceptional cases. In the future, more attention and support will be given to ensure that proposals are formulated in an executable manner.
We’ll keep you posted on the progress as we get closer to the start date.
Thanks for sharing this update on SEP #5 implementation. It’s reassuring to see the team’s dedication and practical approach to adjusting the redemption deadline. Your clear communication is appreciated and I look forward to more updates as we approach these date.
Thanks for your clarification. However, I must say that safeDAO is the slowest moving DAO which I’ve ever come across. I really don’t know why we need THREE MONTHS to discuss a SEP, and then take action FOUR MONTHS later( July 27 - March 29), what’s even more absurd is that no one knows how long we have to wait before we can start a SEP discussion and vote of another half unredeemed token redistribution. To be honest，it’s really really sucks.
For this specific proposal a few factors came together that explain the delay in implementation. One of them being that this proposal is constructed in a way that it heavily relies on the Safe Ecosystem Foundation for the technical implementation of this proposal (see “N/A” under Technical Implementation). We’ll be posting a post-mortem to discuss how we should deal with implementations (especially technical ones) that are not carried out by the proposers/SafeDAO itself.
Regarding your second point around the proposal process being unclear, we recently published our SafeDAO Governance Hub, which gives an overview of the current governance process.
Going forward, the process will be more streamlined with the upcoming governance framework (which is one of the milestones of SEP #3). We’ll be kicking off the discussions within SafeDAO to establish the governance framework later this week. Would be great to get your input then on it!
Isn’t relying on a foundation the most normal thing in the world for such an proposal? This is not a proposition that benefits just one person, but the entire community. If the proposal concerns only one person, he must also undertake the implementation. But this proposal applies to all token holders, and you can’t expect someone to do all the work for free. Employees of the foundation are paid. The community members aren’t.
I hope it will not be one or two discussions. in the sense that it will be a kind of “fund” that will need to be distributed. and piece by piece the next “direction” will gradually be determined and executed to give voting rights in the DAO to the next group of people.
Hmm, let’s share plans so that we have a common understanding of the goals of certain actions.
It’s not that things are slow on side F. The issue is that there are certain processes that involve working with the community, and there are also things that happen “behind the scenes”. I understand how this might look from the outside, and I also understand how things might be happening on the F. side. Sometimes, the DAO’s activities align with F.'s plans, and sometimes they don’t. If this dissonance lasts for a long time, or is expected to last for an unspecified duration, then the DAO might not respond due to a lack of tools to express a response. If you don’t like it, your only option is to choose not to participate in the forum.
Personally, I appreciate you guys and I don’t judge you. I understand why this is happening. In some cases, I understand (or can guess) what might be going on behind the scenes.
However, what you need to understand is that this process of development is objectively very drawn out. Yes, there are many arguments that almost all work (e.g., theses about it being a unique object, not the “usual” “pass-through” “another DAO”. It might be much more effective, as well as constructive for the quality of DAO and F. communication, if the understanding of “blocking tasks” were not in the form of two isolated “systems” (DAO and Other Safe), but as one simple non-contradictory “map” of the route we all follow together.
I am very confident that if it were as I describe, these displays of irritation and disgruntled criticism might simply not exist. Simply because it would have been a collective effort. Whereas now it looks like a "mechanism that allows F. to “connect” the “decentralized nature of decision-making” to its actions when necessary for some task involving risks of the “Howie test” or something like that. (And we all accepted the offer of a public contract in the first vote
(I’m not trying to express dissatisfaction, colleagues. I was trying to help you see the process from “another point of view”)