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

Where are they? They want to vote at last time again??

I don’t want to play pretending democracy game

just tell us the result.


They don’t show up to me, do they for you?
That screenshot is from SEP #2, isn’t it?

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.


According to what you said, according to the number of safes held by investors, investors seem to have a one-vote veto power on any proposal, so could you please convey to investors who have the right to decide whether they can express their opinions before voting on the proposal? Opinion? Because once they decide to stand on the opposite side of the community and vote, the discussion and governance of all our community members will become a joke. They can express their opinions before the proposal is made, so we can know whether the proposal is still necessary, do you think I make sense?

1 Like

So you admit that our discussion and our vote is just a joke? One or two investors can decide the vote result without the need of community and why we need the Dao ? @theobtl

We complained about it not because of the result of the vote but the way to it. The vote becomes a tool to make fun of us because we really do not need it.:rofl:

Ps: I really respect the team’s efforts for this genius project and you guys are really changing the crypto world.
Also I really appreciate the gift from you and it give me the chance to become a tiny piece of your long journey. But the Dao did not work like a Dao compared with other communities.Have you ever considered of hiring a community mannager to design the basic framework ?

I also voted the same as Auryn for exactly the same reason.

The tokens should be distributed to their originally intended recipients. Especially since the token is still non-transferrable people do not claim it since it’s not needed.

Doing anything right now would be a mistake.

1 Like

Yeah, this is totally fair enough.
I missed this context.

I think the other part of what was less than ideal was just the phrasing of the options.
I think it probably could have been worded more simply / clearly.

  1. redistribute 1/3 of unclaimed tokens
  2. redistribute 1/2 of unclaimed tokens
  3. redistribute 2/3 of unclaimed tokens
  4. redistribute ALL unclaimed tokens
  5. Abstain
  6. Make no changes

B and “make no change” are functionally similar, so the options explicitly mentioning B seem somewhat redundant.

Perhaps a question for another thread, but I also wonder whether “make no change” should always be the first option. There are some subtle biases introduced to polls by the order and priority (option A vs B, 1 vs 2, etc) of the options. Similarly, perhaps we should avoid labels, like “option A”, in favour of short descriptive labels, like “redistribute 1/3”.


It’s great to see engagement in the vote - I do think it’s also notable to continue to look at there are still more tokens at the foundation that can be used to seed additional utilization grants etc. so this is not our only chance to create new user engagement incentives. In addition we are seeing investors use their significant voting power here as well (previous SEPs) which is completely reasonable but we need to have the rest distributed in order to ensure balanced governance right now there is 32M less voting right so votes are easily swayed by a wallet holding 8M SAFE. Which is why I’m advocating for all to A. We need to ensure that we have tokens distributed and used to drive governance especially when the token is not transferable. By kicking the can down the road to any allocation to B - we will kick the checks and balance of governance down the road too…


Right, these are the tokens that could be distributed, IMO. Rather than those that were allocated but not-yet claimed.

1 Like

But if you want to get the tokens to the originally intended recipients, wouldn’t „Option 4: A+B, using 1/2 for A and 1/2 for B“ be an equally as good if not better choice?

Yes, if you vote for that option 16M SAFE goes to those that previously redeemed their allocation.

But another 16M would be available, subject to another vote, to be used to re-open the claim period for the initial airdrop.

Obviously, those 16M are not enough if every eligible user would claim their allocation.

But I‘d estimate there to be no more than 500-3000 additional claims, totaling perhaps 1-4M SAFE, as the bulk of active Safes already claimed their allocation before the deadline.

1 Like

Thanks for coming here to comment, auryn. :+1:

1 Like

I’m going to remove my personal opinion of which option and make a general observation - @auryn please watch the vote carefully tomorrow - I have a feeling your 2.4M SAFE votes could be the defining factor between Option 1 and Option 2. Looking at the total votes in SEP 2 we had 32M - currently there is approximately 24M votes cast - meaning the likely voter missing is the investor who controls 8M. If they vote the 8M behind ‘do nothing’ it’s moot - option A will win with 11M votes; if they vote for option B - that could swing to B - however - with your current vote you’ve effectively abstained from what is really now a binary decision between Option 1 and Option 2. So while I understand your sentiment for you may need to think about changing your vote to counter balance the various investor wallets that may still vote. Of course if the investors vote for option A then it’s moot. If the investor votes on option B - they will need your votes to reduce the allocation in order to win the vote. If the 8M investor doesn’t vote - then your current 2.4M could sway from the vote from Option A to B as well. Tomorrow will be interesting to say the least.

1 Like

Well nevermind - literally as i was typing the 8M voted for option B. Guess we will have to see if by distributing 16M more tokens if that will give us sufficient voting to counter balance the two large investor wallets that control 12M - which theoretically it does make it more even balanced.

I will now make an appeal that during the final 24 hours of voting - that we really should look at pushing all the votes we can to Option A - we need to have more governance power sooner in order to appropriately counter balance the 7% owned by investors in case it ever needs to come to some sort of DAO vote where stakeholders may disagree and be misaligned.

Yes - it’s an unfortunate situation that users aren’t getting their initial tokens that were allocated - but at the end of the day we need to ensure that there is better checks and balances for governance and this is where potentially the big picture for the project must trump the individuals at this point.

great concept and answers here

This proposal has had the largest turnout of votes thus far (similar results as SEP #2 + banteg’s delegated address). id’ consider this a benchmark going forward if the proposed 1/2 of remaining voting power is distributed. Will it improve the balance or have no effect? :thinking:

1 Like

I will no longer participate in safe’s community governance, very disappointed, goodbye safe. Institutional investors have completely broken the rules of decentralization. This is not a DAO organization, but a centralized company.


Hooray, the VC is back!

Phew, I was starting to get worried. I thought there might actually be a vote that’s decided by the majority rather than a single entity for once. Usual service resumed. GG.


Following the Snapshot vote , the quorum was met (a new record participation rate, BTW!) and the proposal was accepted with Option 4: A+B in parallel, using ½ of unredeemed tokens for A and ½ for B, whereas:

  • Allocation A: Redistribute unredeemed tokens proportionately to all those who previously redeemed their allocated tokens

    (Tokens would be vested over 4 years. Vesting start date is September 1st, 2022. Vested and unvested tokens can be used for voting. The tokens must be redeemed before July 1st, 2023, or they will once again return to the SafeDAO treasury.)
  • Allocation B: Explore other ideas for allocations, including but not limited to setting up a new claim period for those who were eligible for the initial claim but had not redeemed their allocations (“extend claim period”)

    (Voting for Allocation B serves “only” as a signal; a final decision on extending the claim period and/or considering other ideas for allocations requires another SEP.)

So, if I’m not mistaken, option A still requires another proposal to actually execute this on-chain, no?

Who is responsible for the implementation of this proposal?

The passed proposal is A&B in parallel, so I think that would be discussed within implementation proposal after we figure out what to do with Allocation B. I really really hope we don’t have to start YET another series of SEP for a simple redistribution implementation. Things are moving really slow here, let’s just get this problem over with, think of utilities for the token and ultimately get transferability enabled asap. It’s really hard to have any new participants to join when Safe has a token that is practically gate-kept to VCs and existing users.

1 Like

At this rate , SAFE might be utile & transferrable in 2024 lol … I hope we not going to loose 3 months discussing about distribution again. :yawning_face: