Good move, I think this will create a loyal user base for Safe long term
Thank you very much. And how about another 1/2 unredeemed tokens redistribute progress? Are there any SEPs to be discussed or voted at the same time?
There has been no recent discussions how to allocate the other half. This would be a separate process with its own SEP.
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.
hi,goodgood lucky lfg
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.
Thank you very much. I believe we can make much more progress with governance framework in the coming days. Let’s build safeDAO together !
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”)
To also share my perspective on this: I actually started this topic to have a discussion about what should be done with the 32M unredeemed tokens, and initially it was not my intention to turn this discussion thread into a SEP.
In the days and weeks after I made the thread, there was a lot of lively discussion happening and I noticed that there is an incredible interest in this topic – only then did I get comfortable with the idea of turning the discussion thread into a SEP.
And, of course, redistributing unredeemed tokens is something controversial. There are many opposing views, many different ideas about what to do with the tokens.
In some ways, SEP 5 is not the work of just me, but one that hundreds of SafeDAO members have contributed to – either via their comments in this thread, or by voting in the temperature check to decide about the voting options for the official vote.
There were several iterations of this proposal (as can be seen in the edit history).
And yes, authoring a proposal like this in the open, continuously incorporating new feedback, is not the most time efficient approach.
But compromising on time efficiency in favour of community involvement was intentional. And I succeeded with this approach, the proposal was controversial, it still is, and yet only a surprisingly small minority voted for “Make no changes”.
SEP 5 is a proposal that was decisively shaped by the community, and not one that I discussed in a back room with large delegates and then put on the forum.
That also surprised me somewhat. When we discussed SEP 5 earlier this year, there were a lot of ideas for how to allocate those tokens. And yet there has been no proposal so far.
Definitely options 1 and 4 are worth considering, I like option 4 better, but 1 isn’t bad either.
- The proposal has been approved. When can we start claiming safe
Hello,Is there any progress?
Hello Daniel, can you please keep us informed of progress on this topic? We’ve been waiting several months for things to get moving, but nothing is happening.
Maybe we need to rethink the forum structure and communication channels, as I see across the forum that people do not seem to find the recent information on the execution of proposals.
With regard to SEP #5: The proposal is currently being executed and the last update was shared here and in the last community calls: [SEP #5] Redistributing Unredeemed Tokens From User Airdrop Allocation - #282
Expect another update tomorrow on July 27, 2023 when the redemption process begins. Stay tuned!
No change, as no one has brought forward a proposal if and how to potentially allocate the second allocation.
Yeah, I want to ask, will be redemption process begin on July 27th? And we can claim the token on July 27th?
Because I haven’t seen any progress regarding the token redemption, Are you sure?
Isn’t it safe team’s job to do that ?
Yes, here is the announcement we made on the redemption details: [SEP #5] Redistributing Unredeemed Tokens From User Airdrop Allocation - #282
We’ll share instructions how to redeem tomorrow in the course of the day.