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.
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.
so first of all i made this account to address you and the others who feel like they are owed more then what was given… i will list some of the concerns brought up by the “community” and then make a statement about each one…
Community - “we the members of the community have decided to not claim any tokens in the allotted time but rather we would like to complain on the forum that life was intended to be fair and that being said you should open the claim period back up for our laziness”
My statement - I use Safe for multiple companies and projects. I would never trust any other wallet. that being said i was thrilled but amazed to find out the safe team so generously decided to give me free tokens. i claimed these tokens on day 1 and was very active with the process. i followed the rules and read all the terms about claiming these tokens and was honestly shocked that so many people did not read the rules and claim in the allotted time… my honest words on this is very simple. IF YOU DID NOT CLAIM YOUR TOKENS IN THE ALLOTTED TIME I AM SO SORRY BUT TRY BETTER AND PAY ATTENTION.
Community - “we the members of the community feel that the Safe team has no idea how to steer this project and we are absolutely being played with our small airdrop of tokens compared to the teams massive allocation and leverage in the voting on snapshot. this is supposed to be a dao and specifically run by the community not the big whales with all the tokens.”
My statement - the Safe team has worked extremely hard over the last 6 years on building out the SAFE protocol also with creating the safest place to store assets on chain. that being said the community has no right to feel entitled to take control of this project. and your free voting power should most definitely be a tiny tiny amount of leverage when it comes to voting compared to the people who actually build this project. this concept of buying your way to voting power is not new and it works like this all over the world… if any of you community members feel so strong about your rights in the safe voting powers i suggest you put some skin in the game just like these safe team members have done with their lives over the last SIX YEARS.
Suggestions for how to get more “skin in the game”
buy a bunch of coins just like the investors did.
work on the SAFE team
build on top of the Safe Protocol
The bottom line is very simple. if you think these team members will make this a smooth easy process for you to get free tokens just to dump and brag about your airdrop gains, you are wrong and will continue to struggle with the concept that is very obvious in your face
Since existing claimants will already receive more tokens than they had originally anticipated, we’ll be voting for Option 4 to maximise the amount of tokens that can be distributed to other SafeDAO initiatives.
If Option 4 (or 5) goes through, we’d recommend Allocation B tokens to be distributed to grants / ecosystem rewards (raising the allocation above 7%), which allows other potentially valuable contributors to SafeDAO to receive allocation even if they missed the airdrop.
For the sake of transparency, we at 1kx will be voting for option 4. To us, option 4 strikes a balance between rewarding early and active adopters who participated in the first airdrop and promoting community growth and development by exploring alternative allocations.
In particular, we are excited about the possibilities that Allocation B offers. By working together to find new and creative ways to distribute these tokens, we can bring in valuable community members who are also likely to be active participants in governance. Our initial suggestion would be earmarking this allocation for ecosystem grants as this would encourage builders and developers to contribute to the community and drive innovation, but we are open to hearing what the broader community proposes.
It’s a very good start. I hope everyone can govern safedao together. At the same time, I also hope that you, as institutional investors, can express your opinions at the beginning of each proposal, vote on the security check snapshot, and let the community know the direction of the next proposal.
Undoubtedly, your choice is correct. I hope that we can resolve the redistribution issue as soon as possible, and then we can make proposals for the utility and circulation of tokens, as the market sentiment will be very good in the next two months. Safedao needs more people to participate in order to become healthy and strong. Let safe tokens circulate!
I voted “make no change” on this proposal for two reasons:
I feel pretty strongly that the tokens should be distributed to their originally intended recipients and not redistributed elsewhere.
The poll options poorly formatted, in my opinion. An option for 100% to option B should have been included or option B should have not been included at all, since it is ambiguous and functionally similar to “make no change”.
I should have been more involved in this discussion earlier on. Will be more engaged for future SEPs.
The temperature check decided over the final voting options. Virtually no one voted for any of the three options that were allocating tokens only to B.
And since I committed to only include the top choices of the temp. check in the official vote, my hands were tied.
I agree that this is perhaps a bit unfortunate, as there might be merit in having at least one option which allocates tokens only to B.
However, it seems that practically none of the 836 voters in the initial temperature check shared this opinion.
For the future it could be helpful to integrate temperature checks more formally into the governance process and to share them on the official Twitter accounts so that more people become aware of them.
Since this seems to be a widespread concern that came up several times over the past weeks, let me clarify:
These wallets belong to investors who of course are free to vote as well if they wish. I can’t tell you about their plans for SEP #5, because I don’t know them.
What I can tell you is that many investors are mindful about the amount of voting power they hold and the responsibility that comes with that. Some have refrained from voting, others actively engage in the discussion (e.g., 1kx and Longhash a few comments up).
What’s more: With the Snapshot team and others, we’re working on a technical solution so that major token holders can partially delegate their voting power to several other accounts which will be part of the solution to distribute voting power even more.
Maybe more , but definitely with safe!