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 ?)
It looks like community is pissed and most of the milestone before transferability were reached.
Shall we move this SEP to snapshot ? Does anyone have enough tokens to do so ?
While it’s understandable that you and some other members of SafeDAO have strong personal opinions on the transferability, the discourse in this thread feels isolated from the rest of the conversations within SafeDAO. The majority of the conversation in this thread revolves exclusively around the non-transferability itself, but there is no constructive discussions what fundamentally changed so that some milestones from SEP #3 should not be applicable anymore.
Instead, numerous members of SafeDAO are dedicating their time and effort to progressing our milestones and work on drafting proposals, giving feedback and showing up on governance calls (here are all the participants and the notes from the last one). This is where we are standing:
The token utility framework is pending and the first steps into this direction have been made with the whitepaper for the Safe{Core} Protocol and the token design discovery (What is the functionality of the token?)
The first wave of our grants program is actively underway.
With regard to the argument that no new members can join us, there are paths forward even before transferability:
SEP #6 mentions the possibility for a retroactive token allocation for SGP Wave 1 participants
50% of the non-redeemed user allocation is outstanding and could be used to allocate the token to users that have not claimed their first airdrop, users on different chains or otherwise
I’d like to invite both of you, and anyone else interested, to our next governance call on Tuesday, 26 September from 7-8pm CET. We’ll be discussing the resource allocation framework in detail.
We’ll also extend the call by 30min (8:00-8:30pm CET) so we have dedicated time where you can raise any concerns with SEP #3 or the milestones overall.
Hello @Andre . Now we wait more 1 year , i see progress and now i have few question , we are dao , and all info need open , say me
Safe
attracted $100 million in investments and gave investors tokens, how many tokens did investors receive?
How many points do we have left before the re-vote?
Why didn’t the whales who failed the Sep 2 vote vote anywhere else? It’s more like they only voted in 1 vote to achieve their goal, they are not on the forum, they were not active in other votes, isn’t that strange?
I hope you will not deny this and talk about honesty with us while there are people who can completely change any vote in their favor and then simply forget about the project.
As this question came up in a few places and to avoid fragmentation, we’ll be using the thread of SEP #3 as central place for updates on the milestones.
Question 3:
While I cannot speculate on individual voting behaviour of certain wallets, here’s the bigger picture: We’re actively encouraging backers, guardians and large delegates to voice their opinions and also engage in every vote. The recent vote on the governance framework [SEP #7] has shown that this is possible. 80% of the top 10 wallets of SEP #2 voted also on the recent proposal SEP #7, it’s the proposal with the highest participation rate - nearly 4x the required quorum - and has numerous first time voters.
