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.
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 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.
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.
The alternate solution is what is currently implemented. He’s proposing a change to a contract parameter that is binary. In his proposal he goes over the issues with the current implementation (transferability is paused) and he wants it unpaused, so unless I different understanding of logicals… it’s either true/false, there’s no 3rd or alternative option to what he is proposing.
And as for getting on him about technical implementation - the contract owner executes unpause i.e. this is nit picky and also are non-engineers prohibited from making proposals? Because shouldn’t the centralized team parading as a dao right now chime in to state how it would work on the technical level considering the contract is owned by you all and you’d be the one evoking that function not this random community member?
Big fan of gnosis/safe but guys - charades of decentralization are so bearish for the team, just unpause this. This so against the ethos of web3 and vitalik would be cringing at the sight.
yep. its hard to watch. been following since the airdrop, never felt compelled to speak up until now.
this proposal has merit in that non-transferability of a governance token results in narrow, homogeneous participation at the core (what we have been observing the last 8 months). In order for an organization to meaningfully decentralize, you need broad and diverse participation at the core. This goes hand and hand with accessibility of the voting power itself.
this dao is a joke and these founders clearly don’t want a dao if they are sluggish and resistant to even opening the door for new participants into the core.
additionally, lets not even get into the security considerations of leaving a token non-transferable for almost a year… would love to know how many addresses claimed the airdrop that are now compromised or defunct… the incentive alignment between stakeholders/users and protocol necessary for a functional dao just dwindles everyday. it’s a joke.
It is clear that there is a desire to get the safe token moving, yet nothing has really materialized except some criticism of how I posted the SEP. @Bruce Do you have the tokens to put it up on snapshot?
It makes me feel like something is going on behind the scenes and someone somewhere doesn’t want to give up a controlling share (or risk others having a controlling share). It’s been a year. Perhaps it’s time to get some media outlets involved to shine a light into this centralized DAO.
The time to enable transferability is now. Even more damaging than the economics of a bear market, participants in the DAO are beginning to doubt and clarity of purpose is being diluted and lost.
People have rewards they cannot sell. People have no onramp to a project in which they desire to participate (if they even still desire to do so). I participated in the MakerDAO community during pandemic lock down, and there were many different view points, but anyone, it seemed, had access to participation and everyone had a vision of moving the DAO forward.
Possible Alternatives: None if this organization truly intends on operating like a DAO.
Why would a token be created with transferability disabled. What information is missing here?
Hello ! I may upload this sep , @Adrian_Hacker if you want and people want .
@Andre I want you comment , we wait more 1 years , i dont see progress in DAO building , all process work very slow , locked transfer its bad for our DAO more people want join to us but cant buy tokens on DEX/CEX . We may wait more years for “done” but other DAO start very fast , optimism start 3 waves airdrops , we cant start freedom token , maybe we make mistake ?)
