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

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!

5 Likes

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

4 Likes

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

3 Likes

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.

4 Likes

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.

16 Likes

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.

2 Likes

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!

3 Likes

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

3 Likes

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.

6 Likes

yes agree i am waiting for update

2 Likes

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

8 Likes

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

2 Likes

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
LFG

1 Like

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

3 Likes

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

1 Like

Kindly upload it to snapshot let’s reach next level

2 Likes

@1sla.eth

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!

2 Likes

Hi Bruce,

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.

3 Likes