[SEP #2] Community Initiative To Unpause Token Contract (Enabling Transferability)

[VICKY89]

i am supporting of unpause token

[dobrokhvalov]

I also support unpausing the SAFE token.

In addition to the points raised before, if we want to grow a committed community and attract new DAO contributors, it’s better to have transferrable tokens while we are in a bear market. Bear markets are for builders and early believers, while bull markets are full of noise and speculation.
It’s better to let potential dumpers dump tokens when it’s cheap, so the cost of entry for new participants is lower.

[Bruce]

Hello , 30 oct , Daniel or other people may upload on spanshot ?

[theobtl]

The proposal was last changed two days ago, so the review period was reset and it could go to Snapshot on Oct 3, am I mistaken?

[Bruce]

I think no , where change ? Pls help me find change) , i think its mistake .

[RSivakov]

But these changes do not apply to the subject matter of voting. They just clarify the nuances of performance. Realisation.

(This is, for example, like “let’s choose a font for the title of the sentence and shift the date again?”)

[Melodic_Platypus]

I honestly am getting bored reading all these pro unpausing comments. They all say the same thing and nothing is being added to the conversation. This comment, however, adds an interesting point regarding the legality of claiming tokens with a value attached to them.

[nodeE]

Agree with you.
Let’s make a poll

• Delay
• Don’t Delay

[nodeE]

The only change made this time around are changes to how voting results are excuted, not the content of the proposal itself.

We’ve actually been waiting a long time, so waiting a few more days is not unacceptable personally. But I don’t see why such a change could cause delays, and I can’t understand if this boring process will bring any benefit to us. In fact this is not effective governance, just pointless procrastination.

[LunaMaxi]

Helloa theobtl, I have a question. As far as I know, the controller of the SAFE token contract is actually the team, and the token contract is written by the team, It seems that only the team has the ability to submit this proposal to snapshot? (call SafeSnapModule in the snapshot vote)

And the proposal has two different time options for unpause (immediately/after claim period end), is this technically achievable if the module needs to be invoked?

[Huntingtonanalytics]

100% agree. I do not see any reason why this hasn’t even gone to snapshot for a vote yet. If only a small minority of participants have enough tokens (delegated or otherwise) to decide what is even put to a vote, then the majority of participants are effectively censored.

If the participants currently holding these large quantities of tokens are concerned that unpausing will cause the token to underperform in the free market, then I believe there are very different agendas at play. I have seen many posts mentioning “bear market” conditions mentioned in arguments to keep transfers paused. Why would the current market price of tokens factor into this decision if at least some motivation to keep transfers paused is not to wait until they will fetch a better price? If that’s your concern, please state it clearly.

As far as token trading being a distraction to some, that should be of little worry to those of use that wish to continue to build and maintain this project. I am certain those of us who contribute constructively have the discipline to avoid being distracted by the candles on the daily charts.

Finally, I don’t feel that having a minority of users “dump” their tokens on the market as soon as the token is transferable to even be a completely negative thing. If they are itching to sell, then I doubt they have or plan to participate constructively in the project. Their tokens will just move to the hands of those who do care to participate. I certainly would be a buyer of such tokens.

[theobtl]

@Bruce

where change ? Pls help me find change)

Just click on the “pen” icon and look at the top right hand corner where you’ll see that time of the last edit.


Here’s also a screenshot of what was changed.

[theobtl]

@RSivakov

these changes do not apply to the subject matter of voting. They just clarify the nuances of performance. Realisation.

(This is, for example, like “let’s choose a font for the title of the sentence and shift the date again?”)

We’ve discussed this before in SEP-1. Fact is, we don’t have a specific-enough governance framework (yet!) that defines when a delay period applies. As long we don’t have that, I believe we should interpret the rules in a more narrow sense and just reset the voting period. Making use of SafeSnap is also certainly not comparable to correcting a typo or changing fonts, but has a significant impact on the nature and implementation of this proposal, I’d argue.

[Nully]

This is a stretch…just vote to unpause and let the sellers sell…for those who’re worried about the token underperforming you obviously don’t know how to trade nor know how momentum works.

Some of y’all over complicate everything.

You can’t time the market, you can’t stop sellers from selling.

[theobtl]

@nodeE

We’ve actually been waiting a long time, so waiting a few more days is not unacceptable personally.

Lots of community members feel like you, it seems. Lots of community members also don’t see us needing to rush here. Judging by the comments in this thread only is certainly misleading due to the bias that those who don’t think we need to rush likely don’t bother commenting here.

IMO, if we look at our simple governance process, we should wait until Tuesday has passed and if no more changes were made by then, the proposal could be uploaded to Snapshot.

Although, if anyone feels strongly about uploading it sooner, they could upload it to Snapshot right now (themselves or coordinate with someone else who has the required amount of SAFE tokens). In that case, the token holders will judge not primarily about the contents of this proposal, but may vote it down purely because some think it didn’t follow the governance process. That’s a risk the uploader would have to take into account.

We could also use the remaining few days to align on the exact specification and proposal parameters that are required so that the Snapshot proposal can be executed through SafeSnap. This includes @LunaMaxi’s recent comment. Setting up SafeSnap isn’t that trivial, so we may anyways need until Tuesday to figure out the specification, give everyone time to review it and prepare it in a way so that on the proposal can be uploaded to Snapshot from Wednesday without any further delay, by whoever will take the initiative.

[Nully]

So what exactly was the waiting period for from SEP1 ‘til now?

[theobtl]

Do you mean how long SEP-1 remained in a review period after its last change?

That was six days.

See also here:

[SEP #1] SafeDAO Participation Agreement

Now that the proposal has been updated based on everyone’s feedback. I suggest to leave it open for a final review for another six days from the update, i.e. until Oct 17. @Bruce I agree with you that the proposal seems ready for a Snapshot vote already today. However, our current governance process requires a proposal to be open for review for at least six days. We have yet to define more granularly whether the waiting period also applies to changed proposals, and if so whether exceptions will…

And here:

[HOW TO] SafeDAO Governance Process

Our very first proposal SEP #1 brought up the question whether the review period of proposals should be extended in case of edits. In case of minor changes, that should most certainly not be required. I suggest to make the following change to the process in the first post: Current Edit: Suggested change v2 Please vote below for a temperature check and comment if you have other suggestions. poll Note: I do not anticipate an extensive discussion around this change, but if you do, let’s move …

[Nully]

Well I’m glad they’re only your opinion because bruh…

[theobtl]

@LunaMaxi

As far as I know, the controller of the SAFE token contract is actually the team

Correct me if I’m wrong but t should be the case that the SafeSnap Module controls the Safe that is the token owner. Meaning, anyone could trigger this proposal if they use the correct SafeSnap specification when setting up the Snapshot proposal.

[nodeE]

Thanks for your explanation, it’s perfectly acceptable to put the proposal for a snapshot vote on Wednesday, and you mentioned that it takes some time to debug the SafeSnap parameters, which I also agree with.

But I’m very worried that when the team edits the SafeSnap parameters into the proposal would trigger a new 6-day delay again, because you may say that the code needs to be reviewed by the community for another 6 days after the release, if this happens, that is really …

I have to point out that as the end of the claim period draws nearer, it makes less sense to have two time options for proposals, and you have to be mindful of that.

Finally, it’s Sunday, according to my observation, this should not be your work time, but you have spent a few hours reviewing and responding to these questions, thank you for your intentions and efforts, have a good day.