As a DeFi veteran who entered the blockchain space during the ETH-ETC fork, I’ve witnessed Safe’s journey from its inception to its current state. While I initially recognized Safe’s potential to become fundamental Ethereum infrastructure (a view later reinforced by Vitalik’s frequent mentions), recent developments have raised serious concerns about its trajectory.
Community and Governance Issues
The current state of Safe’s governance presents several worrying trends:
1. Plutocratic Decision-Making
The community effectively operates as a wealthy stakeholder’s club, where a single large holder can override the collective voice of thousands of retail users. This power imbalance undermines the fundamental principles of decentralized governance.
2. The karpatkey proposal case
A particularly concerning example is the Karpatkey’s proposal for SafeDAO fund management. Despite significant community opposition, the proposal passed, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest between large token holders and proposal beneficiaries.
3. Governance Stagnation
We’re seeing a recurring pattern where proposals from the same small group of actors consistently pass through mutual voting support. The lack of new voices and perspectives in governance decisions is stifling innovation and community engagement.
4. Centralized Control
The current DAO management under Aman could benefit from following Amy’s previous approach. A DAO organizer should facilitate community voting rather than wielding veto power.
Technical and Product Challenges
The product strategy also shows concerning gaps:
1. SEO and Brand Visibility
The choice of .global domain instead of more established TLDs (.com, .io, .org) has significantly impacted Safe’s visibility and user acquisition. This may explain why Safe’s usage metrics lag behind many Ethereum applications despite its infrastructure status.
2. Integration Gap with Trending Projects
Safe has notably missed integration opportunities with major AI, MEME, and USD* applications. The current solution of suggesting WalletConnect or safe-cli for interactions creates unnecessary friction that may drive users to more convenient alternatives.
3. User Experience Barriers
The response to these integration challenges - suggesting WalletConnect or CLI usage - demonstrates a concerning disconnect from user needs, particularly for newcomers who require seamless experiences.
4. Missed Product Evolution
Instead of expecting projects to adapt to Safe, a more proactive approach would be developing a user-friendly wallet solution similar to OKX or Rabby, leveraging Safe’s multi-sig capabilities as a unique selling point.
Strategic Missteps
The platform has missed several critical opportunities:
-
Failed to capitalize on three bull market cycles
-
Limited engagement with AI trends
-
Minimal presence in the BTCFI ecosystem
-
Stagnant mainnet growth
-
Overemphasis on vanity metrics (Worldcoin and OP wallet address growth)
-
Significant losses for strategic investors and token holders
-
Delayed progress on account abstraction while competitors advance like(particles)
These observations aren’t meant to disparage Safe but to spark meaningful discussion about its future. I hold $SAFE a lot.
As someone who has followed Safe’s development since its early days, I believe addressing these challenges is crucial for realizing its original vision as essential Ethereum infrastructure.