Thanks for starting the conversation. I like option 2 but should not overlap with the first airdrop. A mix of all 3 is also good.
Option 1 can use the same formula as the first airdrop but should probably remove the 400 base amount and be included it in the 4 year lockup. Option 2 would need more discussion on who/what to included (probably via nominations and voting).
I don’t recall the full token distribution chart but was any $SAFE allocated for liquidity bootstrapping? That might be an option as well if none is allocated.
Extend the claim date by a few weeks to give everyone who didnt claim a second chance and make sure only dormant addresses are left out
I second this idea. Speaking on behalf of the 1inch DAO, we use Snapshot + Safesnap to do all transactions with our Gnosis Safe (the multi-sigs are only used for emergency situations). This means that all transactions made with our Safe take ~2 weeks to complete (from Snapshot creation to execution).
We had two separate proposals to claim out allocated SAFE tokens but both failed to meet quorum. It wasn’t due to the proposal being controversial, just a lack of overall voting power.
Since then, our recognized delegates have accumulated enough voting power to be able to ensure that we can easily hit quorum on proposals like this.
So, it wasn’t a lack of interest that prevented us from claiming the SAFE, but just the slowness of our governance process (we are working on optimizing this).
I third this. The window for claiming, especially considering that every SAFE claim had to be executed via multisig was a very short window, when compared to any other airdrop I have heard of.
Unclaimed tokens, at least in my case don’t mean either that I didn’t care, or that I forgot to claim. I literally didn’t know the airdrop had even begun until a few days ago I checked and to my utter dismay saw that it had already ended! I knew of the airdrop back in August/September but at that time no official date had been announced and after that time I never heard anything else. I’m not sure how it was announced or how eligible SAFEs were supposed to learn of the airdrop.
I’m sure there are others in the same boat as me who care about claiming and would like to participate in governance but are now unable too. I was actually VERY interested in claiming because I checked one of the preliminary spreadsheets and saw that I was due for a claim of 8000 SAFE, but I never received any notice of the airdrop happening or saw anything about it on Twitter, or in Gnosis discord. It’s hard to stay on top of every thing that’s happening. I think the claim period was far too short and people who want to participate have been left out.
Basically, if we didn’t follow SAFE DAO on Twitter was there any other way to get the announcement of the airdrop ? I had notifications turned on for this forum and never saw a post that the airdrop date had been announced. I asked about it in the forum on Sept 22 and response was “date has not been announced”, then it looks like the date for claiming started on September 28th? I feeling like I’m just spamming this thread but it’s super disheartening to not have the ability to claim.
And the craziest part is I follow @safe on Twitter and was never shown the post in my feed!
I would hope the content of what I’m writing is more salient than the form it comes in. Maybe you could at least also respond to the content instead of purely being negative ?
Just a heads up that I rewrote the proposal to adhere to the Safe Ecosystem Proposal Template.
It’s still a work in progress, but since it’s been 18 days since I started this discussion, I thought it was long overdue to share it.
I tried to address and incorporate some of the ideas I’ve read here in the forum so far. That being said, I’m still actively working on refining the proposal and would welcome further input from the community.
I support claiming after claim period in this situation, because as a DAO, it may not be able to claim in time due to the complexity of the governance process. This is understandable, and it does not necessarily mean that it does not care about SAFE protocol. I recommend sending unclaimed tokens to these DAO’s addresses directly.
But I do not support (or even strongly oppose) extending the claim period for all addresses. I think the claim process for personal addresses is very simple. No claim for three months can only show that these addresses don’t care about this product and DAO.
The three-month claims period is a screening criterion. If there is no claim in time, these unclaimed tokens are best distributed to other more active product users, such as safe users of other evm chains.
Since $SAFE according to the recently passed #SEP3 won’t be transferable until the about 5 milestones are completed which is much likely to take another few months to see those milestones achieved, I would suggest giving another claiming chance to those who missed claiming for various reasons
Extending claiming period seems to be the most controversial point of the suggestions so far and I can see the post already updated to be in support of not extending the claim period
…but still I think extending the claiming period for a very short period of time (2-3 weeks is not a bad idea (especially for those that missed due to delay from a co-signer)
However, it’s a known fact that even if claiming period is extended to 1 year, some tokens will still remains unclaimed.
In view of this, I will be in support of Option 2: distributing 50% of unclaimed to already claimed users and returning the remaining 50% to SafeDAO treasury
Can’t stress enough that the delayed enabling of transferability significantly impacts ideas in this thread and whether they can be executed at this time.
You have a good point when you suggest to focus on new (or renewed) ways to become eligible to claim the SAFE token. How about making that the short-term focus of this discussion (while any other ideas that require SAFE to be transferrable are still collected, but backlogged)?
When it comes to renewed ways to claim SAFE, my sense of the discussion so far is that there’s at least one argument that is often mentioned and broadly considered a valid argument:
For context, the argument is that EOA (e.g., Metamask users) are typically individuals and their process to redeem (accept) the airdrop was quite straightforward, taking just a few minutes from beginning to end. Non-EOA users however (e.g., DAOs using multisig/smart contract wallets like Safe), have a very different situation when they need to decide whether they should claim at all – be that through a DAO proposal which can take months, be that through a traditional hierarchy which can take similarly long, or delayed by other factors such as awaiting advice on how to deal with any internal legal uncertainties). After the decision to redeem has been taken, they often also needed to coordinate among the signers to implement the decision by signing and executing their redeem transaction before Dec 27, 2022.
Another argument that proponents of account abstraction/smart contract wallets could make is that: A DAO whose mission is to promote account abstraction should not unfairly disadvantage early-adopters of account abstraction solutions. ‘Unfairly’ is a subjective assessment, of course, though following the initial argument above that EOA users have a way less complex process to claim than non-EOA users, one could argue that giving them the same amount of time is in fact unfair (analogy?).
On the other hand, it could be challenging where exactly to agree on drawing the line and needed to be confirmed how we would implement a renewed allocation technically. If we start with a too simplistic idea of distinguishing between both groups, but then end up making pragmatic/technical compromises to the group of eligible recipients, that could again question the fairness.
What does everyone think about these arguments, 1) treasting EOA and non-EOA recipients differently, and 2) not working against our vision of promoting account abstraction?
What does everyone think about these arguments, 1) treating EOA and non-EOA recipients differently, and 2) not working against our vision of promoting account abstraction?
Historically, account abstraction has been about giving non-EOAs equal rights when compared to EOAs – non-EOAs are second-class citizens now. Giving non-EOAs more time to claim should be right inline with the goal of improving the UX for early adopters of account abstraction solutions imo.
However, I’m not against the EOAs having more time as well. Though there is less of an excuse for them being unable to claim during the claim period, I think the benefits of a SAFE distribution that is widely considered “fair” far outweigh the cost of airdropping those tokens that have already been earmarked for distribution.
I just want another shot for the non-EOAs, a lot of which are DAO treasuries, to be able to claim their SAFE. If extending the claim period for all accounts is the price of admission, I believe it is worth it.
This doesn’t completely fit with the rest of the comment but I just wanted to expand on the 1inch DAO anecdote I provided earlier in the discussion:
The airdrop claim is a respectable amount, but no members of the 1inch DAO have argued that the 1inch DAO should sell the tokens. Instead, 1inch DAO was going to delegate the SAFE to one of our own delegates, and we were exited to have active representation in another DAO’s governance process (especially since we rely on Safe’s multi-sig infrastructure to secure our entire treasury).
So, there is no personal financial incentive for any 1inch DAO member, we just want to use our SAFE allocation to form tighter bonds between our DAOs (this probably holds true for a lot of non-EOAs).
Extending Non EOAs’ claim due date than the EOAs may be good but we shouldn’t completely ignore the confusion this might cause among the claimants
With some of the excuses I have read here, I have reasons to believe that if there are different due dates for EOAs and Non EOAs, we will hear many cases where people will be saying “I couldn’t claim my Airdrop in time because I thought the due date is (Non EOAs claiming due date)”
I’m in support of extending the claim period but both the EOAs and Non EOAs should have the same due date.
Afterall, this is just a second chance, they’ve both given 3 months earlier.
