Let’s make some more multi-signature wallets. This team (at this level of amateurism) wakes up in the morning and changes the snapshot date.
1 Like
Cry more bot then cry some more.
The saltiness is real but at least it wasn’t as bad as the last proposal, GREAT JOB TEAM.
Not considering additional chains is a bit short-sighted. According to your Dune query, applied to BSC and Polygon, there have been 16.6K and 77.3K safes created, respectively. BSC was introduced over a year ago, and Polygon fast approaching that milestone. To say that they, along with the other chains you’ve hosted since then, are somehow less a part of the Safe community is a little insulting.
I appreciate that the technical complexity is not trivial, but I have faith that a team smart and driven enough to create such a robust infrastructure could also figure this out.
I ask that you reconsider relegating alt networks to “afterthought” status in this process. Do right by all users, no matter which network(s) introduced them to Safe.
2 Likes
Gnosis Safe excluding Gnosis Chain is a huge red flag, even beyond other EVM chains but those are obviously deserving of being included in the user allocation too.
If they need to be left out at this time due to technical limitations, then we should first allocate an amount of SAFE tokens from the user distribution that will be distributed to retroactive users on GC and other EVMs at a later date.
Rather than saying it will be determined at a future date via community proposals and come from the community treasuries or ecosystem funds. Taking it from those other sources of funds and leaving it to community to determine just pits the Ethereum airdrop recipients against other EVM users.
Set aside tokens now from the user allocation and clearly communicate that these funds are to be distributed to EVM users on similar terms as the mainnet distribution. It’s the most straightforward way, and it doesnt shirk responsibility from Gnosis Safe contributors to a future community of mainnet Safe users to work out.
1 Like
This is the best criteria. But the 50% vesting period is not good. Give all token Immediately. No vesting plz.
I think some of the conditions are set too loosely and will allow many users who are not in real need to get a lot of tokens, they will not care about the development of the project and will sell immediately.
After the new proposal was released, I know many airdrop farmers celebrated how many numbers he had in the private chat groups and immediately had people show off how many accounts he had farmed.
This guy sent out a tweet saying that he had created over 100 accounts in July and 200+ $SAFE each. That means he can get more than 20k SAFE tokens.
His wallet is 0x9E01eF6402b6c76c07Bcc71Eb64036fE9051fFaE, he executed 4 transactions and transfer remain ETH out to create another one.
After I posted his tweet to SAFE‘s discord channel, another person named ofart.eth sent me a private message abusing me, he must is an airdrop hunter too.
Let me see what he did:
His one of safe wallet is 0x10d04ac2e28f4db3956f64747c57078c569ac6af, he transfer in 0.11ETH and transfer out 0.05ETH at July, remain 0.06ETH in Safe and no more transactions.
According to the above 2 examples of airdrop hunters, I think the key to filtering airdrop hunters is not in the snapshot time, but the storage value. Real users use safe wallets more for storing assets. Storage of small token value is a very obvious feature. 50k+ address is 0 value in value_eth.csv and value_stablecoins.csv, including the first guy I mentioned above, but he still can receive a lot of tokens if rule not change.
Suggestion:
Include all Safes that were created before August 18, 2022 and that made BOTH at least 1 transaction AND 100k value stored over time ( combine value_eth.csv and value_stablecoins.csv).
1 Like
I think it is unfair and unreasonable to cancel airdrops for users who have not generated transactions or deposited Tokens.
- The purpose of the airdrop is to promote the project and get more people to participate and build and promote the project. Airdrops should be issued to all users who have participated and they are all potential users.
- Very many bots have deposited 0.0001 ETH in their accounts, they alone have hundreds of such accounts, they are bots and pests, and will not have any positive effect on the future of the project.
- I think you should judge the quality of the user’s address to feel whether the person using the safe is a real user or not, with or without the ability to make a positive impression on the future of the project.Not just depending whether or not already deposit.
Someone has swiped 100 accounts, and there are more than 20,000 tokens in total. Is the project party optimistic about this behavior?
Transactions with too small value(for example less than 0.011ETH), and transactions with a short interval between transfers in and out of about the same amount, should be ignored in calculating. It’s obviously airdrop hunter behavior.
Thanks, no doubt the new proposals will reach more communities and involve more people in governance.
they literally said that it will be considered after the first airdrop, stop trying to sway w/ bullshit narrative.
Yes, you’re correct - they literally said considered, which is non-committal, and easy to ignore or reduce in the future. I’m simply asking them to commit and do it correctly and reasonably the first time, treating all of their users equally among the chains they have been officially supporting.
1 Like
I understand your pov although I don’t agree with it, gnosis safe was born on Ethereum so it’s only logical to prioritize the early users and then consider alt-chains after with a proposal. Hence it’ll be up to the SafeDAO to approve said proposal.
If this was about prioritizing early users, they wouldn’t have moved the cutoff to August 2022. I can appreciate that this may seem like a complex problem, but taking all of the current considerations as a whole, it doesn’t make sense to exclude, at the very least, the two alt chains they’ve supported for a year (but honestly should simply be every chain up until the August cutoff)
Although I hate Airdrop drop hunters. However, what I want to say is that no matter how they are defined, it will not eliminate their existence 100%. On the contrary, real users may suffer a higher standard of harm. This is the result of the game. If the gnosis community wants to be scattered, it should include people with various purposes. I like $safe ,
I think it’s a good thing to lock 50% token this time… People will be forced to participate in management, because only a strong community will allow more people to use gnosis, which will be a good Way
I don’t think creating one or more gnosis contract wallets after the snapshot on April 16 should be regarded as airdrop hunters. Because this logic doesn’t work. No one does something meaningless. It takes not only a lot of money but also a lot of time. Let’s go back to April 16. You think you will know that have taken snapshot. Will you do this? I don’t think so. So I can only think that he is a small investor or a user who likes multiple wallets, which is nothing wrong.)
3 Likes
Wouldn’t it be easier to farm on alts though? I’m sure they took that into count when they made that decision, what would the criteria even look like? Anyways it’s obvious the proposal won’t please everyone so they’ve got to start from somewhere.
It is humble request to safe distribution that lot of asian people hot information after 20th august and made both in eth and polygon chain safes. Humble request to make snapshot date to 30th august as we did not have any infor about snapshot already done on 18th august.
Just check how many safe created from 18th august till 30th august and decided accordingly.
Thanks
The safe I created in February, in matic, has an operating capital of about 400,000 USDT. I use matic because its price is cheap, but you ignore real users?
I think it is extremely unreasonable。
1 Like
sir my wallet is eligible as per new criteria but has not been included in the list please reconsider it and include it if you wish i can share my safe address.