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

Thanks, and I know I am beating a dead horse at this point, but if Twitter is the main way to distribute information about what the DAO is doing, users have to rely on Twitter’s algorithm that we will get fed the posts. I follow SAFE Dao on Twitter and never saw the post until you shared the link. Very similar to how I never saw that the airdrop was happening, hence why I am advocating for an extension for users with SAFE allocations to claim their airdrop.

1 Like

I am not a huge twitter person. I found out about the airdrop from twitter.
I support extending the claim period for both EOAs and non EOAs


Instead of that, the team should give the second change to the people who didn’t redeem in time.
If not, I vote for “make no changes” because the redeemers have already got the tokens equivalent to contributions.

1 Like

Not sure what the fuss is about the claim period being short. Regardless of twitter activity, anyone or group actively using the safe would have seen the airdrop claim button, non-EOAs might still take months to approve the claim transaction, and EOA’s and non-EOA’s are equally using the safe.

I understand that we are trying to find a middle ground that is fair for everyone. We should draw the line on this extended claim/non-EOA extension at some point and make that concrete.

That being said, a decision should be made whether to allow unclaimed safe’s to claim before redistribute or to redistribute first then claim unclaimed tokens after.

Which one should we do first?

  • Vote to extend claim period
  • Vote to redistribute unclaimed tokens (as stated in OG’s first post)

0 voters


True that we’re talking about two very different approaches to this proposal with the initial conversation on redistributing unclaimed tokens to those who had claimed, or giving those who had not claimed another chance to claim. It seems the conversation has shifted towards the latter, but they could even be two separate proposals.

Thinking about the long-term health of SafeDAO and reaching a state of decentralisation, I wonder whether an extension of the claim period (i.e., adding more token holders) should be discussed before we discuss redistributions to those who have already claimed (i.e., not adding more token holders but their respective weight).


Just had an idea that satisfies both sides. Redistribute remaining unclaimed tokens to all eligible addresses from the first drop. Same calculation, slightly less tokens.

It seems like it’s already all been collected? It looked like barely anyone had collected 24-hours ago and now I’m getting “execution reverted: sold out” error when I try to claim. Though front-end is still saying there are 14 left to claim out of the 10,000

The SafeDAO Twitter account is limited to important DAO-related updates (votes, discussions etc.) which is why the Take Back Ownership campaign wasn’t posted on that account.

And yes, the NFT of the manifesto minted out within 24 hours of announcement but we’re working on other ways people can show their support. There isn’t any utility or other reason to hold the manifesto, it’s just a fun way to commemorate your support of the initiative and moment in time.


I am not an opponent of extending the claim period, in fact I’m pretty neutral on this, and in the event of a vote, I would almost certainly abstain or vote in favor of it.

However, we do need to talk about whether or not it’s worth delaying voting on redistributing tokens for what might be 3 months - because this is the delay we can expect if there is a successful vote for extending the claim period.

Here is a list of what would have to be done and how long it would take:

  1. A new vesting contract that covers only Safes that did not redeem their user airdrop allocation before the end of the deadline needs to be deployed (< 1 week)
  2. Proposal needs to go through all governance stages and then be voted on, SafeSnap modules need to be configured (~ 3 weeks)
  3. Redemption period of at least 4 to 6 weeks to give DAOs like 1inch that need a longer time to redeem the tokens enough time

After that we are almost in April, and we might only have had 250-1500 additional Safes that have redeemed their allocation, because most of the active Safes have already redeemed their airdrop before Dec 27.

Only after that we could vote on redistributing tokens, but in a way it is already too late because important votes on the constitution and a resource allocation model have already taken place by then - without the bulk of those 32.2M tokens that were not redeemed participating

And I hope that now my intention behind the different voting options becomes clear. For example, if we decide to distribute 50% (16.1M) of the unredeemed tokens to the users who have redeemed their allocated tokens previously, this does not mean that we can’t also extend the claim period.

Because for this we need, if we assume 1000 more Safes that would claim their airdrop, not more than 2M tokens, and we have 16.1M available.

With this approach I think we could do justice to all. And there would still be tokens available for airdrops to L2 Safes, or any other ideas that were brought up here.


Personally I find it quite interesting that the focus of this SEP is to allocate more tokens to the users that already have tokens (which is ok, as it is rewarding active participation to some extend), rather than checking how the unredeemened tokens can be distributed further.

A couple comments mention that the tokens should be use to reward usage on other networks and also the possibility to reward more recent activity (i.e. via the takebackownership campaign) came up.

For me personally it would make sense to look further into these as a DAO strongly builds on top of this diversity of users. The initial airdrop was kept simple because of complexity and this is a chance to extend this.

Related to the tokens of DAOs, not managing to claim their airdrop. If they contribute(d) to the success of the Safe projects they could always make a case to the DAO (e.g. an individual SEP) and request support in form of a SAFE allocation. This is very much in line how other project handle this (i.e. Optimism).


Just to clarify: This is a draft and not yet a formal SEP.

In the original post (which was replaced by the current draft), I did mention that it could be worthwhile to expand the set of addresses to receive an airdrop allocation, mentioning Gitcoin donors, GnosisDAO Snapshot voters, and more.

I decided not to pursue this with the current proposal, for a number of reasons:

  1. The set of ~11K addresses that have already redeemed their airdrop allocation seems to be of uniquely high quality, given the extensive work that went into filtering out sybils.

    (any distribution to an expanded set of addresses would require either extremely high criteria or another community challenge to achieve at least a basic level of sybil-resistance)

  2. Using either half or two thirds of unredeemed tokens for redistributing to users that already have tokens doesn’t stand in conflict with later distributing tokens to an expanded set of addresses, subject to further voting.

That being said, I‘ll as a first response to the feedback received here change the voting options in the draft to also include an option where only 1/3 of unredeemed tokens are redistributed to users that previously redeemed their airdrop allocation. If that option were to be chosen, 21.5M out of 32M unredeemed tokens would remain available.


Especially if one of the stated goals of redistributing unredeemed tokens is to increase decentralization in governance, giving more tokens to user who already claimed tokens will not accomplish that goal. So your points about looking to reward users on other networks and having individual DAOs request support in the form of a SAFE allocation warrants merit.

1 Like

This makes sense. Even if we do extend the claim period, a substantial amount of unclaimed tokens would still remain and we’re back to square one on what to do with unclaimed tokens.

Your points on time management also brings up the issue of when these ideas would be rolled out. So, I see four potential use cases brought up here for the unclaimed tokens which if done one after another would take more than a year to conclude. Rather than focus on one us case like redistribute, lets focus on everything and prioritize the ones that are more important. Here’s an example.

  1. claim extension;
  2. redistribution;
  3. layer 2 airdrop;
  4. dev grants; and
  5. treasury.

We could even take these and throw them into a snapshot vote for community decision on what to exclude/prioritize, w/e is faster.

For token allocation we could do it a little different.

A vote with weighted averages and some hocus pocus math to come up with a percentage token distribution across all options (except for claim extension, see next paragraph). u can choose to put all your vote into treasury (do nothing) or split it 50/50, 50/30/20, w/e u think works.

For claim extensions, a form submission for safe owners with unclaimed tokens would track the total token allocation for the claim extension allocation. since we would get a definitive number of safe tokens to work with, the remaining tokens would be voted on as stated above.

once we’ve done those two votes we come up with a roadmap based on the results so where all on the same page. then we just start knocking off items on the list starting from the top.


Excellent points ser and agree with what you have to say.

Spoke my mind for me! :saluting_face:

I’m in agreement with @Melodic_Platypus as regard finalizing all the proposed options in a single proposal rather than wasting time seperating the options to different proposals.

It’s already not too pleasing to see that none of the 5 Milestones that will enable transferability of $SAFE has been ratified after 1 month #SEP3 was voted and passed.

So, let’s move with good pace and let the options proposed in this thread goes together.

Looking at the above listed options, I won’t be in support of using part of this unclaimed airdrop to reward L2 and/or other side chains because;

  • it has been written few times here on this forum that token in the treasury will take care of it when it’s best time to reward L2 and other side chains.

  • This unclaimed airdrop may not be sufficient to reward L2 and other side chains due to number of addresses on those chains.

I’m in support of:

(A) - Redistribute ⅓ of the unclaimed airdrop to those that has already claimed and if possible, ensure that SAFE addresses that has voted or whose delegate has voted on their behalf on any of the Proposals (SEP 1 - 3) gets more share.

(B) - Dedicate ⅓ of the unclaimed airdrop to Dev GRANTs , but this is if and only if the 25M $SAFE reserved for Safe Guardian Volume 2 won’t take care of this.
(I wouldn’t say no to a clarification from @rimeissner as regard what this Dev GRANTs tends to address that is different from 25M tokens reserved for Guardians Volume 2 of which larger percentage will be Devs as seen in Volume 1)

If Safe Guardian program will address this, kindly dedicate it to #TakeBackOwnership* campaign instead

(C) - Extend the Claim Period for 6 weeks and dedicate the remaining ⅓ of the unclaimed airdrop to this. I believe this ⅓ will be more than sufficient for those interested to claim from and whatever that still remain unclaimed after this extension gets returned to the Treasury

Then, we can come up with options like;

Option 1: A and B only
Option 2: B and C only
Option 3: A and C only
Option 4: All of the above (i.e A, B and C)


Why don’t you give this to new other users who created and use gnosis-safe before December,2022.

as you know it’s difficult to use and not easy as other decentralised wallets.

Atleast have faith and show some appreciation towards newbies.

If you agree then retweet…


Good proposal. I support it.

If 55,719 Safe on Ethereum could be allocated 50M tokens, do you think 32M token that remain unclaimed could be used for reward over 800k Safes on L2 and side chains :question:

Since there are plans to reward these set of users from treasury later in the future, it’s best we don’t mix it here and return whatever that is left after necessary distribution back to treasury for the time being.


1 Like

I believe that the next airdrops should be for all users and not only for whales, look at how the optimism network grew by being for everyone, we can learn a lot from the other networks.

1 Like

Totally agree with @Daniel , the delays of votes and discussions are already long enough and what he suggests is unanimous and proposes a significant saving of time.

We can then finally focus during this time to think about other issues like a new economic/fee revenue model for example instead of risking 1 year of discussing only about token distribution