[SEP #X] June 2023 Vote to Enable Token Transferability

June 2023 Vote to Enable SAFE Token Transferability

Author: Adrian Hacker ahacker.or.us@gmail.com

Created: June 4th, 2023


This is an official proposal from the community to the community to enable the transferability of the SAFE token for the second time.


SAFE tokens became eligible for claiming around eight months ago but transferability of the token was locked as a function of the smart contract. Presumably so that token dumping would not crash any potential value the token would have initially. This was also around the time that the crypto exchange FTX went insolvent and there was generally a lot of fear and paranoia in the cryptocurrency market which could have adverse effects on any initial value that the SAFE token had by default.

SEP#2 has been put to the community regarding enabling the transferability of SAFE tokens and the community voted to hold off on making safe tokens transferable. SEP#3 came shortly after which was a vote to establish some milestones to be completed prior to enabling token transferability. These milestones are as follows:

  • Milestone A: The claim period has passed. - Complete
  • Milestone B: An SEP on a constitution has been ratified. - Complete
  • Milestone C: An SEP on governance framework has been ratified. – In Process but not showing a lot of momentum.
  • Milestone D: An SEP on a resource allocation framework has been ratified. – In process. SAFE grants program has been approved.
  • Milestone E: An SEP on token utility has been ratified. – In process. Discussions have happened, but this shows limited movement at present.


Override these requirements and enable transferability of the SAFE token at this time.

Not a DAO if there is no path to Access:

With SAFE tokens as the primary mechanism for participating in governance, having them locked gives no on ramp for those that want to participate in the governance of the SAFE and no off ramp for those that are holding the token as early adopters or contributors. The five requirements that are supposed to be met are very high-level items that essentially define all aspects of how SAFE will operate. With token transferability locked, that creates a central entity in charge of this and takes away all decentralization. Participants or would-be participants are blocked from coming in and helping to create and define this wonderful mechanism for holding and protecting blockchain valuables.

Nature Will Take its Course:

Regarding the value of the SAFE token, whether it is now or later, the value will do what it is going to do. That decision is for the ‘market’ and the ‘market’ alone. Without the token utility fully defined, it is still the key to participating in the governance of the SAFE. That utility alone should be enough. An accessible voting token is the foundation of DAO architecture.

Missed Value:

Just like a token can lose value quickly upon its introduction to the market, it can also build value over time. Market sentiment does a lot of good things and that potential value capture is being missed at this time. Limited accessibility at first could benefit how the market values the SAFE token CAP. Markets are fickle though and so are people and attention spans are not getting any longer in this day and age.

Discussion on the Forum and Snapshot:

This proposal should get immediate attention and assigned as a formal SEP and posted to snapshot as soon as possible. I do not have the 20,000 tokens required for posting. If this is truly a decentralized autonomous organization, then enabling token transferability should not even be a question after this amount of time has elapsed. At the rate the five milestones are reaching completion they are not practical milestones to decide SAFE token transferability and it was likely not known at the time of SEP#3 exactly what the velocity of these workflows would be. Token transferability adds incentive and pressure to the creation of policies and practices where incentive and pressure were not meant to exist.


Option A – Override SEP#3 and enable SAFE token transferability now.

Option B – Do not override SEP#3 and do not enable SAFE token transferability now.


Copyright and related rights waived via CC0


The analysis is very accurate, but you need to cooperate with safe guardians who are interested in this proposal to obtain enough safe tokens for uploading snapshots.
Following is the list of safe guardians who should have enough $safe token to submit snapshot. Guardians Gather - Safe Ecosystem / Safe Guardians - Safe Community Forum


I am for enabling transferability. This has dragged on for way too long. People are starting to lose steam and faith working on a project that they have no incentive to work on. There needs to be liquidity NOW or this DAO will be beyond rescue. The public does not know a lot about this DAO and even avid users like myself and many others is starting to forget this DAO even existed. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LET THIS PASS OR WE WILL NEVER GET ANY PROGRESS!


I am for the proposal of enabling transferability, as this itself would unlock a whole new area of use cases for the token and the safe ecosystem


Yes agreee its been a month ang they forgot the community is waiting for the update


I am also for this proposal. If for no other reason than to improve the token distribution. Until token buyers can form a large enough voting block to credibly challenge the team and VCs, DAO participation feels kinda pointless.


Great. How do we vote?

1 Like

Hi @Adrian_Hacker , thank you very much for your active involvement and proactive proposal. Active community participation is vital for SafeDAO’s governance.

However, a few necessary elements, as per our current governance process and as per our SEP template are missing from your proposal.

Formal requirements:

  • Effects and Impact Analysis: Your proposal includes some comments related to this aspect but lacks a separate section dedicated to it. It also does not cover the effects and impact analysis if the token becomes transferable. A comprehensive analysis detailing potential implications, benefits, and risks is essential for a balanced evaluation.
  • Alternative Solutions: The proposal currently lacks insights on possible alternative solutions. Exploring and detailing potential alternatives, along with reasons why they may not be as effective as your proposed solution, is critical to fully comprehend the context and significance of your proposal.
  • Technical Implementation: The proposal lacks details about the technical implementation, and misses the onchain execution configuration through Reality.eth (former SafeSnap) to unpause the contract.

Comment on the proposal’s content:

  • Waiving milestones instead of working on them is not a good sign in general, as it does not take the community decisions made seriously. The decision on token transferability was widely discussed by the community and was not taken carelessly. It was agreed that fundamental governance matters regarding decision making and use of funds need to be clarified in order for SafeDAO to be solidly positioned. The need to clarify these matters has not changed since SEP 3. Due to the continuing needs and in light of the complexity of these matters, it would be fair to give ourselves some more time as a community to adopt an approach that is as thoughtful as possible.
  • With regard to the claim of a lacking momentum, I have a different perception. Several community members are working on proposals for each transferability milestone. The momentum is there. However, it is a fair critique that this needs to become more visible. I hope that this will soon become visible with the governance framework proposal and further initiatives. On top of that, I also think there is some frustration in the community that proposals are being discussed without giving them a specific deadline. This is another point to think about for this and future proposals. In this context, however, we should also bear in mind that decentralized governance is slower than centralized governance due to increased information and coordination costs.
  • On the point of “no path to access” without a transferable token:
    • Governance participation does not necessarily require token holdings. Decision-making is one of the primary forms of governance and ideally it should take place through comprehensive forum discussions. Participation in such discussions does not require token holdings.
    • Safe Grants Program and grants council nomination are another example of how to get involved in the governance process without the requirement of token holdings.
    • If SafeDAO sees additional value in distributing more Safe tokens so that they are included in the Snapshot voting, this can already be done via grants or airdrops. In this case, particular care would have to be given to ensure that the technical implementation processes are followed, so that the involvement of the Safe Ecosystem Foundation is taken into account.

Example for amending the voting options:

In order to separate the concerns, it would be good to split a potential modification of the milestones and the transferability of the Safe Token into separate proposals. If the milestones should be modified, it would be beneficial for the expectation management if they are provided with a deadline. See Option B below:

Option A - Discard SEP 3 and vote on Safe Token transferability now.

Option B - Set deadline for achieving the milestones set out in SEP 3 to end of Q3 2023 and vote on transferability once milestones have been achieved or vote on transferability beginning of Q4 2023, whichever comes first.

Option C - Make no changes.

Looking forward to your feedback.


Can you explain why this proposal has not been implemented by SEF yet? @Christoph

This proposal is a proposal officially passed in the snapshot vote, and Theo said before leaving that this proposal will be implemented by SEF. The proposal requires token holders to claim tokens before July 1st and it’s about to expire due to the negligence of the safe team.


Let’s cut to the chase. The lack of transferability of SAFE tokens is not merely inconvenient, it’s a crippling drawback. We’ve created a currency that can’t circulate. Remember the purpose of SAFE tokens? They’re meant to be moved, consolidated, and efficiently managed. But here we are, stuck in the inertia of over-caution. It’s not always about selling, sometimes it’s about simple relocation. The inability to move tokens to the desired wallet is, frankly, absurd. This should have been addressed way before. It’s like we’re a self-proclaimed decentralized organization, that’s surprisingly centralized. Let’s get real, folks. And for the love of Satoshi, isn’t it obvious that a cryptocurrency should be transferable?
So we must go for Option A tomorrow!


It’s been almost 8 months and Safe community is eagerly waiting for this moment…plz don’t make them wait anymore


Am all for enabling transferability, but the current market and atmosphere is not ideal imo. too much shit going on in the market and US. This has overshadowed a lot of activities and might not give the event the needed publicity and reasonable hype. probably will be a good idea to wait a while for the market and the current atmosphere to settle a bit.


yes agree i am waiting for update


What is the Ideal time?

The markets are as boring as they can get already, might as well be the perfect time to get things rolling, no?

IF we choose to enable it sooner, rather than later, it’d give those who wish to buidl, a chance to begin building, right away.
This would also raise awareness and begin to attract more people towards the Safe ecosystem and its DAO, where they’d be able to invest using their time, capital and/or whatever else they’re able to bring to the table.

Enabling transferability should be more than just speculative MM


I may upload to snapshot if adrian say yes) , but i think need re-create sep #7 with rights !


Is there a way to link the wallet and vote

1 Like

Free $SAFE To Explore Open Markets And Addapt The Nature Of Crypto Volatility.
We Consider Ourselves The Owner Of Safe When Ourself Willing To Hold The Token To Participate In Governance

1 Like

I am for the proposal of enabling transferability, but before that, I think we should redistribute the unredeemed token.


Am in support of enabling safe token transfer.
I hate this centralization

1 Like

Kindly upload it to snapshot let’s reach next level