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
Free $SAFE To Explore Open Markets And Addapt The Nature Of Crypto Volatility.
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
Kindly upload it to snapshot let’s reach next level
What’s next? I do not see any activity, almost one year has passed during this time, many projects have presented their tokens, everything except the safe, the forum has become boring and dull, in which month I would not go all the same endless puppet voting that can easily be carried out 2-3 whale, what’s the point in us all? You’re so good at ignoring the token transfer topic, you didn’t even let my proposal come out!
I know that in the past communication has not been as proactive as it should have been, and we’re actively working to change this. First steps towards this are the SafeDAO Improvement Survey and the SafeDAO calls that various members of our community have taken advantage of. We’ve already gotten very valuable feedback and will share it and put it into action.
As to addressing the milestones: in our recent Safe Community Call #9 we discussed the ongoing work to move forward the process to deliver the milestones based on the significant contributions of SafeDAO members. StableLab (thanks @Nneoma_StableLab / @Matt_StableLab!) did a great summary in one of their recent posts. We’ll have an update on the process very soon and welcome active contributors.
Quick note on your proposal: your proposal [SEP #X] Vote to Enable Token Transferability was not ignored, quite the opposite. When moving it from Phase 1 to Phase 0, I addressed the reasons why it cannot pass to a voting stage with this scope. If this is unclear, feel free to ping me anytime.
I know , check pls my thead !
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my strong support for overriding SEP #3 and enabling SAFE token transfer within our community.
The SAFE token holds immense potential for our ecosystem, offering increased security and efficiency in transactions. By overriding SEP #3, we can unlock a multitude of benefits, fostering a more robust and seamless token transfer experience.
As an active participant in our community, I firmly believe that embracing this change will elevate our platform to new heights. Enabling SAFE token transfer aligns with our mission to provide a cutting-edge, user-centric environment for all stakeholders.
I kindly request that you consider my vote in favor of this essential decision during the upcoming deliberations. Let us seize this opportunity to propel our community forward and solidify our position as pioneers in the blockchain space.
Thank you for your attention, and I remain excited about the bright future that awaits us.
It’s disappointing and exhausting to see that there’s no progress on SAFE’s proposals. Potential ‘token holders’ are worn out and no longer find it interesting to participate in governance, as everything is centralized.
It’s impossible to create or propose voting initiatives because the team holds all the voting power. This year, account abstraction will be one of the biggest catalysts in the crypto ecosystem. SAFE has always been building on this and is one of the pioneers of this innovation, but it’s impossible for investors to speculate on this.
Also, many fantastic ideas have been developed for generating revenue (SAFE is a revenue machine), but they may never materialize due to the slow pace of governance.
SAFE runs the risk of missing its best opportunity in this cycle.
good This is good advice, not circulating tokens is not conducive to the development of safedao
This SEP was proposed on June 5, suggesting a vote to enable transferability IN JUNE. It is now LATE JULY and there is ZERO (not even temp check vote) progress, there is next to zero discussion and communications. Even the redistribution SEP has seen basically zero progress(mind you the proposal has already PASSED and a decision has already been made, but no one has moved a FINGER to go forward with the plan)
Im started to think that this thing is just a giant show. So called “DAO votes” means nothing bc there is no one is there execute it. Im not sure what’s happening at SAFE HQ, is this a management issue or a human resources issue? How is progress THIS slow? What is this token EVEN FOR? This whole thing makes no sense to me. The whole point of a DAO token is to put money on a project, that’s how a DAO incentivizes people to work on the project, except this DAO has locked down their token, it is literally money that you can’t spend.
The longer this drags on the lower the value of the token,
The lower the value of the token the less people want to work on it,
The less people to work on it only slows progress,
Slow progress kills projects.
To all the devs and good people working at SAFE, I am not sure what’s going on in that office. But please, at the VERY least, give us a clear, honest answer on why progress is so slow, we already don’t expect much, at least tell us something.
From my understanding, the problem here is that the proposal author is inactive – he was last online in the forum on the day he wrote the proposal.
So @Adrian_Hacker probably also didn’t see Christoph’s post, who pointed out to him that the proposal had to be revised for it to meet the formal requirements.
I think in order to prevent confusion here, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to remove the SEP number from the proposal in the next few days/weeks, because no progress can realistically be expected.
Andre has recently given an update on this and it seems that the redemption period for the additional allocation could start as early as tomorrow.
There seems to be a misconception on which progress is being made. This could be due to the fragmented nature of the forum and that our communication channels are not sufficient. However, progress on the SEPs was shared in the respective threads, the community calls and the last two governance calls.
Regarding the token transferability:
SafeDAO decided in SEP #3 that before voting on enabling token transferability different milestones need to be met. Below are the ones that have been met and that are currently being worked on:
- Milestone A: The claim period has passed [COMPLETED]
- Milestone B: An SEP on a constitution has been ratified [COMPLETED]
- Milestone C: An SEP on a governance framework has been ratified [ONGOING]
- Milestone D: An SEP on a resource allocation framework has been ratified
- Milestone E: An SEP on token utility has been ratified
The last weeks a lot of SafeDAO members have been actively giving feedback on the active proposal to ratify the governance framework either directly in the forum, in the google doc or on the governance calls. Feel free to add any feedback as we are just incorporating the one given so far!
Regarding SEP #5:
Updates are in the thread: [SEP #5] Redistributing Unredeemed Tokens From User Airdrop Allocation - #282. Redemption starts 27 July (tomorrow).
Regarding this SEP #7:
I can only add to Daniel’s comments. This proposal has no activity from the proposal author since it was posted, be it to the formal requirements or the discussion around the milestones.
@RealNSB, it would be great if you had 15min one of these days to jump on a call how we can improve the communication. I’ll reach out via DM.
Thank you for your communication efforts @Andre glad to see things moving a little bit.
Any updates regarding this SEP?
yes you have to claim any amount. you have til Oct 10th i believe is the deadline.
The deadline in October is with regard to SEP #5, which redistributes half of the unredeemed token from the user airdrop. More info can be found in the thread for SEP #5: [SEP #5] Redistributing Unredeemed Tokens From User Airdrop Allocation - #310
Given the inactivity and that no progress has been made on concerns raised, I will be removing the SEP number from this proposal for the time being. It should not become customary to block SEP numbers to avoid cluttering the SEP terminology with inactive numbering.
can you point us to the governance documentation that outlines that proposers must respond back to the concerns the team raises before they can go to vote?
I read the feedback comment and I am failing to see why, if this is truly a dao, he must respond specifically to those points (vs any other comment) in order for this to move forward?
Wouldn’t the correct course of action just to be to assume C - that the proposer wishes to make no changes in the absence of them not addressing the proposed correction? And if that’s not the case, this is centralized, not a dao.
- 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.
So subjective determination that this requirement was not met - I.e. it’s there but not up to the team’s standards. centralized.
Also formatting tiff, really?