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:
Granting non-EOA recipients more time to claim, like explained by @LunaMaxi and previously brought up by @elec here, @recizk here, @RoundElephant here and @Bendicion here.
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?
Safe is holding a “takebackownership” event.
I think that some of the unvested $Safe tokens can be rewarded to these users who actively participate in the activity.
Because our safe community is not active now, I think this event can inspire these new friends to participate in Safe’s ecology.
This proves that Safe is not just a multi-signature wallet, but also an interesting project.
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.
Do you have any links to literature about this event.
We announced “Take Back Ownership” last week and will be sharing details on the first event later this week. Stay tuned. https://twitter.com/safe/status/1615695322575163393
Thanks, and I know I am beating a dead horse at this point, but if Twitter is the main way to distribute information about what the DAO is doing, users have to rely on Twitter’s algorithm that we will get fed the posts. I follow SAFE Dao on Twitter and never saw the post until you shared the link. Very similar to how I never saw that the airdrop was happening, hence why I am advocating for an extension for users with SAFE allocations to claim their airdrop.
I am not a huge twitter person. I found out about the airdrop from twitter.
I support extending the claim period for both EOAs and non EOAs
Instead of that, the team should give the second change to the people who didn’t redeem in time.
If not, I vote for “make no changes” because the redeemers have already got the tokens equivalent to contributions.
Not sure what the fuss is about the claim period being short. Regardless of twitter activity, anyone or group actively using the safe would have seen the airdrop claim button, non-EOAs might still take months to approve the claim transaction, and EOA’s and non-EOA’s are equally using the safe.
I understand that we are trying to find a middle ground that is fair for everyone. We should draw the line on this extended claim/non-EOA extension at some point and make that concrete.
That being said, a decision should be made whether to allow unclaimed safe’s to claim before redistribute or to redistribute first then claim unclaimed tokens after.
Which one should we do first?
- Vote to extend claim period
- Vote to redistribute unclaimed tokens (as stated in OG’s first post)
True that we’re talking about two very different approaches to this proposal with the initial conversation on redistributing unclaimed tokens to those who had claimed, or giving those who had not claimed another chance to claim. It seems the conversation has shifted towards the latter, but they could even be two separate proposals.
Thinking about the long-term health of SafeDAO and reaching a state of decentralisation, I wonder whether an extension of the claim period (i.e., adding more token holders) should be discussed before we discuss redistributions to those who have already claimed (i.e., not adding more token holders but their respective weight).
Just had an idea that satisfies both sides. Redistribute remaining unclaimed tokens to all eligible addresses from the first drop. Same calculation, slightly less tokens.
It seems like it’s already all been collected? It looked like barely anyone had collected 24-hours ago and now I’m getting “execution reverted: sold out” error when I try to claim. Though front-end is still saying there are 14 left to claim out of the 10,000
The SafeDAO Twitter account is limited to important DAO-related updates (votes, discussions etc.) which is why the Take Back Ownership campaign wasn’t posted on that account.
And yes, the NFT of the manifesto minted out within 24 hours of announcement but we’re working on other ways people can show their support. There isn’t any utility or other reason to hold the manifesto, it’s just a fun way to commemorate your support of the initiative and moment in time.
I am not an opponent of extending the claim period, in fact I’m pretty neutral on this, and in the event of a vote, I would almost certainly abstain or vote in favor of it.
However, we do need to talk about whether or not it’s worth delaying voting on redistributing tokens for what might be 3 months - because this is the delay we can expect if there is a successful vote for extending the claim period.
Here is a list of what would have to be done and how long it would take:
- A new vesting contract that covers only Safes that did not redeem their user airdrop allocation before the end of the deadline needs to be deployed (< 1 week)
- Proposal needs to go through all governance stages and then be voted on, SafeSnap modules need to be configured (~ 3 weeks)
- Redemption period of at least 4 to 6 weeks to give DAOs like 1inch that need a longer time to redeem the tokens enough time
After that we are almost in April, and we might only have had 250-1500 additional Safes that have redeemed their allocation, because most of the active Safes have already redeemed their airdrop before Dec 27.
Only after that we could vote on redistributing tokens, but in a way it is already too late because important votes on the constitution and a resource allocation model have already taken place by then - without the bulk of those 32.2M tokens that were not redeemed participating
And I hope that now my intention behind the different voting options becomes clear. For example, if we decide to distribute 50% (16.1M) of the unredeemed tokens to the users who have redeemed their allocated tokens previously, this does not mean that we can’t also extend the claim period.
Because for this we need, if we assume 1000 more Safes that would claim their airdrop, not more than 2M tokens, and we have 16.1M available.
With this approach I think we could do justice to all. And there would still be tokens available for airdrops to L2 Safes, or any other ideas that were brought up here.