[Discussion] Redistributing Unredeemed Tokens From User Airdrop Allocation

[Work in progress]

  • Title: Redistributing Unredeemed Tokens From User Airdrop Allocation
  • Author: Daniel
  • Created: 2023-01-14

Abstract

As we move forward with addressing the unintended imbalance in the distribution of voting power that arose due to 64,4% of the tokens from the user airdrop allocation not being redeemed, I would like to present the community with a new, refined set of voting options:

  • Option A: Use all unredeemed tokens and distribute them proportionately to all those who previously redeemed their allocated tokens
  • Option B: Use 1/2 of all unredeemed tokens for the aforementioned cause
  • Option C: Use 2/3 of all unredeemed tokens for the aforementioned cause

To keep this proposal as simple and concise as possible, none of the voting options are related to re-opening the airdrop claim period or expanding the set of addresses to receive the airdrop. If there is interest in pursuing this, I recommend voting for either Option B, C or “Make no changes” which would result in either all or parts of the unredeemed tokens remaining available for distribution to these causes, subject to another vote.

Proposal details

Purpose and Background

Initially, 5% of the total supply of SAFE tokens was allocated towards an airdrop for users:

And the story could have ended here, and there would have been no need for this proposal - if not for 32,200,182 out of 50,000,000 tokens not being redeemed by users:

voa

The purpose of this proposal is now to ensure that the originally planned distribution of voting power between the various stakeholders is achieved to the extent that it is possible.

Voting options

  • Option A: Use all unredeemed tokens, which after rounding down equals 32,200,000 tokens, and distribute them proportionately to all those who redeemed their allocated tokens before the deadline.

    See here all 11,635 addresses that previously redeemed their allocated tokens and for how many additional SAFE tokens they would be eligible (safe_additional_eligible) if Option A would be chosen: Dune

  • Option B: Use 1/2 of the unredeemed tokens, which equals 16,100,000 tokens, and distribute them proportionately to all those who redeemed their allocated tokens before the deadline. The remaining ~ 16,100,000 tokens would stay in the SafeDAO treasury.

    Dune (different from the above)

  • Option C: Use 2/3 of the unredeemed tokens, which after rounding up equals 21,466,667 tokens, and distribute them proportionately to all those who redeemed their allocated tokens before the deadline. The remaining ~ 10,733,333 tokens would stay in the SafeDAO treasury.

    Dune (different from the above)

  • Make no changes

  • Abstain

In case either Option A, B or C were approved, the tokens would be vested over 4 years. Vesting start date is January 1st, 2023. Vested and unvested tokens can be used for voting. The tokens must be redeemed before June 1st, 2023, or they will once again return to the SafeDAO treasury.

Effects and Impact Analysis

[Work in progress]

Alternative Solutions

First vote on giving those who failed to redeem their airdrop before the end of the deadline a second chance at claiming the airdrop

While I feel sympathy to all those who failed to redeem their airdrop prior to the deadline, I also think we need to acknowledge the fact that giving the potentially tiny number of users who still want to redeem/claim their airdrop a second chance would delay this proposal by months.

As I briefly touched in the abstract, the better solution for those who care about this would be to vote for one of the voting options that would either leave all or some of the unredeemed tokens in the SafeDAO treasury. Subject to further voting, these tokens could then be used for the above purpose.

Conduct an airdrop to Safes on other chains that were not considered in the initial airdrop

This is a very noble cause, but I guess there are some reasons as to why the Safe core team might have decided to not include other chains in the initial airdrop:

  1. Safe governance lives on Ethereum Mainnet and it is complex if not impossible to operate on other chains in a trustless manner (e.g., it is impossible to enable transferability for wrapped representations of the SAFE token on other chains via the SafeSnap module)
  2. There are roughly 900,000 Safes on L2s and other L1s, there is no guarantee that the gas fee to claim the airdrop will eventually exceed its market value

Having said this, by choosing any voting option other than Option A there would still be unredeemed tokens remaining in the SafeDAO treasury which could be used for this. I’m however unsure about whether or not this is technically possible in a trustless manner.

Not to have this proposal at all

Without voting on this proposal there would be no clarity around whether or not SAFE token holders support redistributing unredeemed tokens to active Safes that redeemed their user airdrop allocation.

Technical Implementation

[Work in progress]

I didn’t find time to look into this closely, but I guess either me, employees of the Safe Foundation or any other community member would need to re-deploy the vesting contract which was previously used for the airdrop, but change the vesting data. I already calculated for how many additional tokens each Safe would be eligible for if either Option A, B or C would be approved:

Dune Dune Dune

Apart from this, we would need to use the SafeSnap module to send tokens to the relevant vesting contract and allow the contract to transfer the tokens to the recipients.


I’ll follow up on the technical implementation and provide CSV files in addition to the Dune queries linked above later next week once I have a bit more time to look into this, I’d also welcome the input of other community members.

Open Questions

The 32.2M unredeemed tokens are as of now still in the old vesting contract. Is it possible to transfer those out to the SafeDAO treasury before transferability is enabled?

(If not, we can simply use SAFE tokens that are already in the treasury but I guess that’s not desirable if there is another option)

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.

32 Likes

Oh, wow. That’s a lot of unclaimed $SAFE.

6 Likes

I wouldn’t mind seeing more being provided to existing claimants - not for market reasons, but because there seems to be quite a large power imbalance between users and other wallets when it comes to voting. Even though I supported SEP-2’s outcome, I still have yet to understand how some single wallets had millions of tokens in voting power where the average was only a couple of thousand.

Another option would be to allocate the remainder for active alt-chain Safe users, notably BSC and Polygon (and I suppose Gnosis Chain), which have been online for over a year. These were left out of the initial process, and BSC especially helped propel Safe(/Gnosis) adoption.

11 Likes

I like the idea of adding L2s and notable alt-chains

There are a number of safes deployed on Optimism as well

7 Likes

I agree with the first proposal

6 Likes

I think it is appropriate to consider allocating a portion to secure multi-signature wallet addresses created and used on other chains (Polygon, BSC, Arbitrum, Optimism, etc.), which is an important part of a secure multi-signature wallet

To close the voting power gap among the ordinary claimants and giga-wallets, the latter of whom can easily veto anything, I suggest that the 2/3 of the tokens should be allocated to wallets who have already claimed, and the rest should be to form a Safe Grants initiative for the aforementioned developers who add value compared to overall extractors within the expanded ecosystem.

3 Likes

guys literally the first time hearing about SAFEDAO and this airdrop. And I check crypto twitter multiple times a day… I mean it would have been nice if this was either marketed harder or there didn’t exist a deadline.

2 Likes

Hello,
I like idea for alt-chain/L2 safe creators.
I guess many people had safe on Arbi Poly BSC Opti or whatever but never used one on Ethereum.
I also agree for giving some to existing claimers.
Part of it in treasury also good (can be used later for contributor, educator, program, else)

2 Likes

Hi, for me 1st option is the best, proposition number 4 is also a good idea

3 Likes

The best way to go is #4.

Small scale airdrop sounds good too for exposure. Gitcoin donors/GnosisDAO voters being the best options, in my opinion. Choosing, of course, donors with good cumulative value of donations, to filter farmers. $50 at least. $100 sounds about right to me. Voters with at least 5 individual votes, and top ~90% voting power

1 Like

Is there a way to claim now?just found out have $300 unclaimed :rofl:, wanna to claim to be the “balance” to Safe family, or I pay the gas fee for direct send?

1 Like

Options 1 and 4 are both good IMO let the DAO decide , pls don’t try to manipulate voting…

1 Like

Honestly, I think unclaimed tokens should be claimable by the addresses they were allocated to indefinitely. If they remain unclaimed, so be it.

4 Likes

These are all good options(1,2,4)

These tokens are originally airdropped to users, so they should be redistributed to users, no matter which distribution plan is going to be used, This helps maintain a balance between the different groups.

auryn proposed to extend the token claim period permanently, I don’t think these addresses will eventually claim the airdrop (it can be understood that these tokens are permanently lost/locked), and I don’t think it will make sense to continue to distribute token to these inactive addresses (or addresses that don’t want to claim safe) since they likely won’t be participating in the DAO.

1 Like

I propose to give 2000 safe tokens to all participants in the forum discussion, because these people have really made contributions to safedao and activated the community.

5 Likes

I prefer option 1 - distributing them to Safe’s that already claimed the SAFE tokens. They have shown an active participation in governance.

For this reason, those who have voted on on-chain governance proposals could also be considered, as they have further shown more active participation in governance.

5 Likes

They have shown an active participation in governance.

I disagree with such a blanket assesment. A sizable portion of people are only airdrop farming.

2 Likes

The original SAFE airdrop was weighted more in favor of active DAOs/users of SAFE.

In any case, the second criteria i.e. if they have proposed/voted on onchain governance processes of SAFE dao can be used to further refine the criteria and eliminate farmers.

2 Likes

I completely forgotten to claim it, there must be a way for those who haven’t claimed it because vast majority of users haven’t, you can’t distribute it to the other users, just extend claiming period