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 havenāt touched the platform between the claim transaction and this message? 
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. Thereās a chance that thereās 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 youād like to add a new option, youāll probably make the effort to pay attention to the proposal and vote in the temperature check. If the proposal isnāt important to you, chances are you wonāt spend more time on it than needed and just vote in the final vote ā 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, Iād 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 membersā votes wonāt count, you donāt 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, Iād 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.
3 Likes
"I donāt want to see the results you mentioned, and I believe the community doesnāt want to see them either. Letās wait and see. If thatās the case, Safedao wonāt go far, itās just formalism. We wonāt participate in discussions and voting anymore, because it doesnāt make any sense!
2 Likes
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.
4 Likes
Clearly greed outpowered.
1 Like
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
so first of all i made this account to address you and the others who feel like they are owed more then what was givenā¦ i will list some of the concerns brought up by the ācommunityā and then make a statement about each oneā¦
Community - āwe 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 lazinessā
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 timeā¦ 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 - āwe 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.ā
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 worldā¦ 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 āskin in the gameā
- 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
A DAO DOES NOT MEAN FREE ENTRY.
BUY IN
OR
BUILD IN
bye.
1 Like
Since existing claimants will already receive more tokens than they had originally anticipated, weāll 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, weād 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.
5 Likes
Hi everyone,
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.
6 Likes
Itās good to see investors express there opinions on the proposal, kudos to you @LongHash_Ventures @AccelXR-1kx
6 Likes
Itās 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.
4 Likes
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!
3 Likes
I voted āmake no changeā 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 āmake no changeā.
I should have been more involved in this discussion earlier on. Will be more engaged for future SEPs.
4 Likes
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.
4 Likes