Hi, you can see the how many claims on each day through the analysis function in etherscan.
Because the token cannot transfer at present, the number of transfers after the token launch is the number of claims, and the number of claims per day is slightly greater than the number of actual claims (because an address can claim multiple times).
As you can see, since Oct. 10, the number of claims per day has stabilized below 100, so I think the current DAO’s initial participation structure has stabilized to meet the criteria for voting.
Hello Daniel, are you still there? we are waiting for your response. It’s time to make the discussion a SEP.
If you didn’t respond this time tomorrow, I will help you bring this discussion into a SEP base on this discussion, and start the 6 day duration for people to check and comment.
You are always the author of this proposal, and I will indicate this in the proposal.
I know that there are some community members who think that the token transfer shouldn’t unpause in a bear market.
But in fact, transfer is the most basic function of a token, and there are many benefits to unpause token transfer, which have been discussed by many people and mentioned above.
What’s more, as the team said, whether to unpause or not depends on SafeDAO, not the team, nor the initiator of this proposal.
As Daniel said, the proposal sets three options
Immediately cancel the suspension after the vote is passed
Cancellation of suspension after the claim period has ended
Don’t make changes now
Everyone can use their SAFE voting rights to vote on the proposal, the options of the proposal fully consider the opinions of almost everyone, and the final result depends on everyone’s vote, which is quite fair.
What’s more, the current discussion/proposal has entered a mature stage
Token holders have stabilized and are in line with the voting base
SEP #1 is about to pass, and SafeDAO already has a clear participation agreement when this proposal begins voting
Almost everyone in the temperature vote voted for(578 votes, of which 99.29% voted unpause transfer), it is in line with the opinions of the majority of SafeDAO members
Whatever, it’s time to make the proposal a SEP and start voting, whether to unpause or not, and when to unpause, should be up to the SafeDAO vote.
I’ve had a chance to briefly chat with @Daniel, the proposal author, who is currently unavailable. He agreed to move this proposal to the next phase and label it with an SEP number.
Meaning, we have our second SEP now!
According to our governance process, this proposal needs remain here unchanged and open for feedback for at least six days from now.
From previous comments and the lack of change requests, the proposal seems quite mature. Let’s see if further changes will be proposed over the next six days, if not it could be uploaded to Snapshot.
Thank you for this proposal.
I am against it, because I believe transferability is not the bottleneck right now. Happy to revisit this topic should the need to transfer tokens changes.
From my pov this has nothing to do with market conditions, but solely with the necessity of transferability.
Beyond Snapshot’s own docs there’s no specific documentation from Safe, yet.
How it works is that all tokens of a given account are always delegated to the specified address. If the token balance of a given account is increased or reduced, this automatically affects the amount of delegated voting power too.
Let’s say, if account A transfers 50% of their tokens to account B, then the voting power of account A’s specified delegate is reduced by 50% of account A’s original balance, but the voting power of account B’s specified delegate is increased by the same amount.
I personally think enabling transferability and having a liquid price would be a distraction at this point and will likely have more bad outcomes than good in a market.
I’d like to see DAO operations really clicking and some value capture in the protocol before enabling transferability.
Strong opinion but weakly held. Happy to hear arguments to change my mind before it’s up for a vote.
Well…! No one needs to change your mind before the proposal gets to snapshot, it’s your opinion and everyone is entitled to have one
Opinions will always be different, that’s normal and it is for this reason voting mechanism gained so much embracement
No one will proof you right or wrong before this gets posted to snapshot as you asked but when it gets there, please do well to vote for your desired option.
This topic has been up for discussion for almost a month, we can’t be moving at this pace.
Maybe you search what is TOKEN ?)
a token is a transferable unit; if a token does not have a transfer, then what is the meaning of it?
Many people, even those who have more than 100k$, have not received even 20 thousand safe, how can they offer their ideas? They can’t get more and can’t buy what’s the point of them then?
What’s the point in an airdrop if at the moment everything is decided by 10-15 addresses? The airdrop of optimism could be sold or staked, it could also be delegated or simply kept.
Token safe can only be stored in your safe and no more. No project work, no transfer, what’s the point of airdropping people who got 150-200 safes? Just pay for a token that is worth nothing, that cannot be transferred, and where nothing depends on your participation because you cannot buy them.
I agree with this and other posts like it. I think introducing speculators into SAFE token without a clear understanding of how we are going to compound any benefits into an improvement of the SAFE ecosystem would be a mistake.
I’m glad we are having this conversation and I think it is needed. We need to think about decisions in this way – are they reversible or irreversible. This is an irreversible decision and we need to put in more thought into the why here.
what speculators? Look around, is there no optimism or arbiter around? Do you think that only you should have a token, well, why do you need it? What will you do with it if it is useless, you can’t even publish an offer if you don’t have enough tokens and no one can send them to you.
I give you example - GnosisSafeProxy | Address 0x3d6b1003822fe10d178a64fccb5f2091b93972b5 | Etherscan
user have more 200k$ active , he receive 2765 tokens $Safe , he cant buy new token and he cant swap/sent this token , he cant give us new idea , its good for you ? How much money need for receive 20k safe and more ? Who control our DAO ? Few millionaires ?
Until tokens are transfereable, there isn’t going to be much of a SafeDAO economy. a transferable token builds a liquid economy that grows a DAO’s ecosystem. it also ensures that incentives are unlocked which is a big part of governance btw. without transferability, we are just operating in a static vacuum.
People trying to accumulate voting power by buying and/or earning tokens is part of what makes governance “Governance”. without those game theoretic scenarios, there won’t be governance. it will just be a mechanical world of voting and not doing much.
Unlock transferability > Unlock incentives > Unlock Game theory > unlock further aspects of governance > Unlock the SafeDAO economy.
Excited to see all the innovation and participation that folks will bring to SafeDAO to create a valuable ecosystem.
I’m willing to change my mind on this, but as of now, there are no compelling reasons to reject token transferability.
$SAFE holder’s who are uninterested in participating in the DAO will remain uninterested. Market participants who are interested, but may not have received an airdrop, remain unable to participate.
Is it not crucial for the maturity of the DAO for uninterested parties to be shuffled out and for parties with vested interests to be permitted an invitation to the discussions and decision making processes?
Why is anyone focused on the token price? What does this have to do with the functionality of the project? Especially in a bear market, we know truly valuable projects will still be around cycle after cycle, do we not believe in the product value of Safe? This is not a compelling reason to delay transferability in my opinion.
Again, I am open to changing my mind, however as of yet I have not been convinced to do so.
You say you feel that you cannot see the significance of enabling transferability at the moment, so enabling transferability is not your favor.
I must refute this reasoning of yours:
The only other proposals now (SGP, OBRA) are based on enabling token transferability. If you feel that you cannot see the need to enable transferability, it only means that you have not read the forum carefully at all. (As far as I can see, you only have 17 minutes/25 minutes of reading, which means you have only seen this proposal. As a guardian with hundreds of thousands of safe tokens voting power, you are obviously not fulfilling your responsibilities)
Aside from those two proposals and the one currently in progress, there are currently no other proposals to participate in. It can be understood that if this proposal does not pass, then the governance of DAO is essentially without content.
Why start SafeDAO if there are no proposals to participate in?
Like you said, you don’t see the need to start transferability, then I don’t see the need to launch $SAFE by your logic, why launch $SAFE? Is it just to help the team complete the fund raising?
The number of likes you get versus the number of likes @thinkDecade gets can tell if people really agree with your reasons.
Let’s be honest, I know your only concern is the bear market, but now the market is clearly starting to turn on the positive side, whether you want the token price to go up, or you really want SafeDAO to get better, you should support this proposal and help make $SAFE transferable.
I am personally super excited about the proposal, because I believe that free market access to liquidity is crucial for the vitality of any DAO. I also believe that it’s important to open up a DAO to the general audience what will help SafeDAO to grow.
However, I would like to suggest to extend the proposal and make sure that the unpause() function is called by the SafeSnap module. This ensures that the outcome of the snapshot vote is executed automatically. After all, it’s crucial for SafeDAO to run things autonomously and make decisions without middlemen or gatekeepers.
I believe a set price should occur as well with DAO liquidity. However, since this is likely to take a long time in discussions and tokenomics etc. and ultimately the value of SAFE is likely incredible as it stands as a DAO and utility token. Unpause will create a mass incentive to the community and new users raising awareness and boosting the community.
Also im usually of the opinion Its better to just free market things like this and crowdsource the LPs, unless the DAO has a target price in mind it would like to set the token at. In which case we should all be aware of the reasoning to not call unpause and why it remains paused. Personally I would buy more, I know others that dev/work with the platform that would do the same who didn’t receive the airdrop for any number of reasons.
Full support in unconditional unpause immediately.
I support unpausing the SAFE token contract when the airdrop claim period ends.
While the initial token distribution intended to allocate governance power to those with an interest in SAFE, it’s critical to the governance process to allow for voting power to change hands over time as interests change.
Governance power in its current form is distributed based on information from before the airdrop was first made available. A more representative and current distribution could be reached by making SAFE tokens transferable with as little friction as possible.
In the absence of a clear reason to unpause before December 28, 2022, I advocate for unpausing after the airdrop claim period has ended. This is because of potential regulatory implications related to the token having a market value when claimed.
Also, I’ve recently joined the Flipside Governance team and will be responsible for our presence here in the SafeDAO forum, so you’ll be seeing more of me around. I’m excited to do SafeDAO governance with you all!
market.