I saw a proposal from ENS DAO that was very similar to this one.
A large number of OGs oppose the redistribution proposal, which is understandable. After they have obtained a large amount of tokens and made money from the treasury, they will naturally not be willing to dilute their power, nor do they want their large amount of tokens to depreciate.
Almost all “OGs” forget that the original intention of launching and airdropping governance tokens is to achieve decentralized governance, not to allow a few people to control all voting rights. It is not a currency that is simply measured by economic value.
Even without discussing this proposal to redistribute “tokens with economic value”, It’s just a simple decentralization of governance rights to users, this discussion still doesn’t get any support from any OG.
This is completely different from the positivity they showed when they discussed selling 10,000 ETH for wages.
I also saw many “OG” objections in this proposal of SAFE DAO, most of them support the extension of the claim period or the distribution of tokens to developers (instead of redistribution of tokens to users who actually use the product).
In fact, most of the addresses that did not receive tokens during the claim period are addresses (or inactive addresses) that are not interested in SAFEDAO. Extending the claim period means that all these tokens will be locked, further avoiding the dilution of power.
And they want to distribute the tokens to developers. Of course, these OG (delegate) want to distribute the tokens to themselves, not the majority of users.
Both proposals are interesting, and while neither has yet reached a final vote, I’m sure both turn out to be satirical.