safe sep

Abstract: The purpose of the governance framework is to define and outline the key stakeholders involved in the governance of SafeDAO, to establish a dynamic governance approach and to describe the governance process. Proposal details: A. Hierarchy of governance sources 1600×1128 94.8 KB SafeDAO governance is built on a hierarchy of norms. In this hierarchy, each level must comply with the level above. On top stands the SafeDAO constitution, which sets the blueprint for SafeDAO, a decentralized collective, stewarding the thriving ecosystem around the Safe Smart Accounts on Ethereum and other blockchains. The governance framework must align with the constitution, and in turn, seasons and proposals must adhere to the governance framework. This structure ensures each element supports and enforces the broader goals outlined in the constitution. B. Stakeholder overview SafeDAO is made up of various stakeholder groups, with a participant potentially being part of several groups. An overview of each stakeholder is provided below: I. Token holders 1. Rights Safe token holders (Token holders) can vote on the scope of governance of SafeDAO (see C. Scope of governance. They can vote with their vested and unvested tokens and delegate their voting power. 2. Responsibilities Token holders are encouraged to actively participate in decision-making processes, lending their voice to proposals, discussions, and voting. to delegate their voting rights to trusted individuals or entities, if unable to actively participate to fully understand the implications of their votes by doing their own research to ensure informed decisions. If they cannot commit to this due diligence, delegation to delegates is encouraged. II. Delegates 1. Delegation process The delegation process is offchain. Token holders can delegate their votes to any address of their choice. The current delegation system requires full delegation of the voting power. Partial delegation may be implemented. Token holders can redelegate or undelegate at any time. 2. Rights Delegates can vote on behalf of token holders who delegated their voting rights to them. Delegates may not delegate their delegated voting right to someone else. 3. Responsibilities Delegates should be actively involved and responsible for representing the interests of the token holders, participating in decision-making processes, and facilitating transparent and effective governance. III. Guardians 1. Guardians selection Safe Guardians are active members of the Safe community, who have verifiably proven their commitment to SafeDAO’s vision. They steward the Safe ecosystem and protocol, while driving the adoption of Smart Accounts. They are mission-aligned and likely to be actively participating in governance. The first cohort of Guardians 4 (Guardians v1) has already received a retrospective token allocation and enjoys certain benefits. Given that Guardians play an essential role in SafeDAO governance by virtue of their responsibilities, there will be further cohorts. Those cohorts will be administered by SafeDAO. Details will be laid out in Guardians v2. 2. Rights Guardians can vote with their tokens granted as part of Guardians v1. In addition, they are required to move mature proposals from Phase 1 to Phase 2. 3. Responsibilities As outlined here 3, Safe Guardians are expected to regularly Keep up with announcements and discussions Give feedback on (pre-)SEPs which will also serve as a signal to other community members. Vote on SEPs via the Safe Snapshot space Push new ideas that could transition to proposals e.g. an iteration on the existing governance process and occasionally Advocate for voting delegations - boost responsibility by campaigning for other token holders to delegate Collaborate with other Guardians and community members to post proposals to Snapshot which requires the proposer to own or be delegated 20,000 Safe token Guardians are encouraged to be actively involved in discussions on the SafeDAO forum. Details of the responsibilities may be specified in a code of conduct, should one be established. IV. Non-token holders Non-token holders have various ways to contribute to SafeDAO. They can submit proposals, engage in discussions on the collaboration platforms and become delegates. As such their rights and responsibilities correspond to their corresponding role. V. Safe Ecosystem Foundation (SEF) The Safe Ecosystem Foundation (“Foundation” or “SEF”) is a Swiss foundation incorporated in Zug (Switzerland). A Swiss foundation is an independent special-purpose fund endowed with legal personality, whose assets may only be used to achieve the purpose of the foundation. It is a special form of legal entity, as it has no shareholders and thereby aims to avoid the value extraction by governance bodies which are not in compliance with the purpose of the foundation. SafeDAO is stewarded by the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, consistent with the SafeDAO Constitution and the Safe Ecosystem Foundation Charter. The Foundation acts as a legal wrapper of the SafeDAO treasury, facilitates and administers the governance procedures and implements passed governance proposals if necessary. 1. Purpose and mission The Charter for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation (“Foundation Charter”), in alignment with the Swiss foundation norms, delineates its purpose, mission, and governance structure. It states that the Safe Foundation is dedicated to the development and promotion of technologies within the Safe Ecosystem, public education about the ecosystem, and the management of related assets. As a legal document, it lays down the operational blueprint, guiding the foundation’s dealings, including liaising with various entities, managing intellectual property rights, and supporting research and development. This promotes transparency and accountability in the foundation’s efforts towards achieving its objectives in the Safe Ecosystem, thereby ensuring its alignment with the overarching goals of SafeDAO. The full text of the Foundation Charter in its legally binding, German version can be found here 1. An unofficial translated version (German / English) can be found here 2. In principle, the Foundation does not have a profit-making-purpose and does not seek any profits. The Foundation may generate profits to the extent required for the realization of its purpose. 2. Foundation’s governance a. Council The foundation council (“Council”) is the highest governing body , with the core duty to implement the foundation purpose. There is a minimum number of three Council members required in accordance with the foundation deed. The current Council members are elected for a period of 4 years. With an exit of a Council member, the remaining Council members would appoint a new member. The Council can remove a Council member with a majority vote. The current composition of the council can be found in the Governance Hub 5. b. Responsibilities of council In order to achieve the foundation purpose, the Council is tasked with: specifying the organizational structure using foundation regulations and guidelines, personnel planning at Council and executive management level, appointing and dismissing members of executive management, and people entrusted with representing the foundation, supervising those people with respect to objectives, approval of the annual report/annual financial statements, supervising compliance c. DAO committees DAOs face a variety of unresolved legal issues. The most prominent ones are the lack of legal personality, the limitation of DAO participants’ liability, and the tax treatment of community assets (please refer to the explanations of the dydx foundation and the chosen approach of a Guernsey purpose trust). SEF has prepared its deed of foundation for the possibility of setting up so-called DAO committees. The unique characteristic of these foundation bodies is that they can be staffed with DAO participants only and the composition is chosen by the SafeDAO. The aim of this structure is to provide a Swiss solution to the legal challenges mentioned above. Furthermore, there would be the advantage that the members of the DAO committee could be supported by the legal and financial department of SEF. Administrative support would allow members of a DAO committee to focus on their substantive activities. The Council can assign certain activities, as well as rights and responsibilities to the DAO committee. Currently, SEF is clarifying the organizational requirements for the establishment of DAO committees with the relevant authorities. Once these requirements have been clarified, it is intended that SEF and SafeDAO will jointly coordinate the establishment of DAO committees. d. Supervision of foundation To ensure that the foundation duly promotes the foundation’s purpose and does not undertake any non-compliant value extraction, Swiss foundations are subject to supervision of the Swiss Federal Department of Home Affairs, enforcing through the Swiss Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (also known as the Eidgenössische Stiftungsaufsicht / ESA). 3. Rights and responsibilities in SafeDAO a. Economic holder of SafeDAO assets SEF maintains stewardship over the assets of SafeDAO, e.g. Safe token allocation assigned to SafeDAO. The Foundation acts as a legal wrapper with the aim to protect individual DAO members from fiscal, legal, and regulatory liabilities. SEF does not engage on behalf of SafeDAO or allocate funds from the SafeDAO treasury without previously being signaled so by SafeDAO. b. Governance administration SEF assists with the administrative elements of SafeDAO’s governance processes. This includes: Moderation and facilitation of governance proposal processes. Removal of proposals that are fraudulent, spam-oriented, defamatory, hateful, or otherwise inappropriate or inconsistent with the SafeDAO Constitution, SEF Charter or any Foundation regulation (if applicable). Exercising oversight and control over collaboration and communication platforms such as Discourse, Discord, Telegram, Twitter, and Snapshot to ensure and facilitate effective engagement and interaction. Monitoring of the voting process including the accurate reflection of voting power, voting periods, quorums and approval thresholds. Other necessary services aligned with the SafeDAO Constitution to ensure orderly operations. SEF provides administrative support to governance processes in order to offer a minimum level of structure. It is open to support community initiatives that carry out governance administration independently or in addition. C. Scope of governance The following domains are currently under governance of SafeDAO: Assets of SafeDAO SafeDAO Treasury and joint SafeDAO/Gnosis Treasury IP rights: ENS domain, NFTs etc. Safe Grants Program with funding and administrative support provided by SEF Unpausing of Safe token transferability SafeDAO governance, e.g. this governance framework, the delegation and guardians program Not yet finally determined, but conceptually envisaged are the following governance domains: SEF governance: Suggestion for DAO committee Safe Protocol: Parameters that have been handed over to the governance of SafeDAO D. Dynamic governance I. Objective The core objective of dynamic governance cycles is to continuously evolve and optimize the democratic processes within SafeDAO. By committing to an iterative and data-driven approach, it is the aim to identify, implement, and refine the best possible governance model over time that truly reflects the collective interests of Safe’s community and promotes their active engagement. II. Governance cycles SafeDAO will change its decision-making process over a specified time frame and run several governance experiments (seasons). Seasons will consist of the following 4 sprints. Sprints 1-3 The proposals of the first 3 sprints could address all governance items (s. C. Scope of governance) with the exception of the SafeDAO governance (i.e. governance amendment proposals and constitutional proposals). This design should allow a focus on fostering the Safe ecosystem while avoiding distractions from governance proposals. Sprint 4: Review and governance amendment sprint As a counterpart to the restriction of governance proposals during the first 3 sprints, the 4th sprint is dedicated to governance review and governance proposals. During this time, no other proposals (e.g. SEP concerning resource allocation) shall be submitted. Guiding principles for timeline The guiding principles of the timing are (1.) to make the sprint processes predictable, (2.) to provide sufficient time for preparation and review tasks of relevant events and (3.) to optimize between Sprints 1-3 and Sprint 4 (review and governance change sprint). III. Changes to governance Changes to the dynamic governance include the processes laid out in this governance framework which include, but are not limited to modifying the governance cycles, the proposal types and the voting mechanisms. The governance framework can be changed itself by an SEP. E. Decision-making process I. Governance toolkit SafeDAO governance utilizes several tools: Snapshot 3: An off-chain voting platform Discourse 1: A community forum dedicated to discussions around governance proposals and related topics. Discord 1: The governance channel is used for governance announcements and less formal governance discussions. Telegram: A chat room designed specifically for informal conversation among Safe Guardians. II. Proposal types According to the scope of governance, these are the following proposal types. Proposal types can be executed either on- or off-chain. Proposal types Description Execution Constitutional Proposals Changes to the constitution off-chain Safe Ecosystem Proposals Proposals concerning the assets of SafeDAO , unpausing of Safe token transferability and SafeDAO governance on-/off-chain Grants Council Nominations for SGP Voting on the grants council nominations for SGP off-chain III. Proposal and voting sprints To reduce operational burden and voter fatigue several proposals are combined into monthly sprints. Each monthly sprint is structured the same way, so that SafeDAO stakeholders are aware of relevant events and can schedule when they will take action. Weeks Stage Weekly Schedule Time Description Who? Week 1 Discussion Monday 0:01 UTC Start of proposal cycle Authors of proposals Week 2 Discussion Monday 23:59 UTC Deadline to post proposal to forum for Phase 1 Authors of proposals Week 2 Discussion Wednesday TBD Proposal review call to present and discuss proposals with community Authors of proposals; Delegates; Guardians; Everyone interested Week 3 Review Monday 23:59 UTC Deadline for signaling on proposal maturity Delegates; Guardians Week 3 Submission to Snapshot Tuesday 23:59 UTC Deadline submission of eligible proposals to Snapshot Safe Ecosystem Foundation (subject to change) or anyone with 20k Safe token Week 3 Voting Wednesday 0:01 UTC Start voting delay None Week 3 Voting Thursday 0:01 UTC Voting starts Everyone eligible to vote Week 5 Voting Monday 23:59 UTC Voting ends Everyone eligible to vote Week 5/Week 1 Discussion Monday 0:01 UTC Start of next sprint Authors of proposals The below visualization is intended to showcase relevant dates on a timeline: 1600×529 163 KB In case that the beginning or the end of a voting sprint event falls on a weekend or a bank holiday, this does not have any effect on the voting sprint processes. IV. Proposal submission 547×1600 95.5 KB 1. Phase 0: Optional discussion stage Anyone can submit a proposal. Based on the proposal’s maturity, determined by a self-assessment from the authors, they can choose to submit the proposal to either Phase 0 or directly to Phase 1. Phase 0 is optional, but recommended when discussing new ideas, since a successful proposal will need to garner momentum inside of the community. For this the proposal needs to be Submitted to a new discussion thread on the forum in Phase 0 Marked with [Discussion] in the title 2. Phase 1: Official draft stage If the authors determined by a self-assessment believe that the proposal is mature enough to vote on it (either after Phase 0 or directly), then it must be Submitted as a new discussion thread on the forum in Phase 1. If there was a previous discussion in Phase 0 add a link to it. Marked with [Draft] in the title. Formatted and contain information consistent with the proposal template in Annex 2 V. Process from Phase 1 to Phase 2: Signaling of delegates and guardians For a proposal to proceed from Phase 1 (proposal stage) to Phase 2 (voting stage), 3 delegates or guardians, with a total voting power of 60.000 Safe token, must give signaling on the discussion thread. Delegates may not approve their own proposals. Delegates may signal approval by pasting the following comment on the proposal discussion thread: ”I am a Safe delegate/guardian [link to your wallet address] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote." The relevant time to determine the voting power for signaling is the deadline for signaling on proposal maturity (E. III.) If a delegate signals approval to move a proposal to a vote, it should not be construed as an endorsement of said proposal. It signifies that the delegate believes the proposal is ready to move to a vote. Authors can reach out to Guardians if they believe their proposal is ready to move to a voting stage. SEF will check if there is sufficient and valid signaling according to onchain data (e.g. dashboard [SAFE Governance Stats | jkhuhnke11 | Flipside 3]). After the proposal has gotten sufficient signaling, a proposal number is assigned by a forum admin. [Alternative] Temperature check on Snapshot after 7 days with [...] participants [can also be used to move from Phase 1 to Phase 2 (or also for Phase 0 to Phase 1). VI. Phase 2: Voting process 1. Voting system These are the parameters of the voting system that can be used in upcoming seasons. The specific voting system used depends on the specific season, the proposal types and the individual proposals. 1388×334 18.3 KB 2. Voting formalities The final ratification of a proposal requires a successful vote on the safe.eth Snapshot space or specific subspace that fulfills the following requirements, laid out in the Annex 1 to the respective season. Duration: Proposal must comply with the voting delay and voting period of the Proposal and voting sprints (E. III.) Who: The Safe Ecosystem Foundation will add proposals to Snapshot that are eligible to Phase 2. In addition, technically any token holder with at least 20,000 Safe token can post proposals on Snapshot. Form: Proposals must comply with the voting system for proposal type. One outcome needs to be “Make no changes” Proposal must comply with quorum Majority - Specific majority of the SAFE used for voting on Snapshot Proposal title - [SEP #] Proposal description - Has to follow the SEP template Proposal discussion link - Link to SEP on the forum 3. Participation agreement The participation agreement 1 as implemented through SEP #1 defines who qualifies as a SafeDAO participant. It provides rules to reduce liability to the greatest extent possible, and establishes a complaints and disputes procedure. It aims to manage expectations and provide legal clarity for stakeholders interacting with SafeDAO within the broader Safe ecosystem. Every stakeholder who wants to vote on a proposal via Snapshot needs to first agree to the participation agreement. 4. Voting power The voting power is the sum of the voters own voting power and delegated voting power. a. Own voting power Token holders can generally vote with their vested and unvested Safe token. One Safe token equals one vote, unless agreed otherwise through a specific voting strategy. SafeDAO and the Foundation do not vote nor delegate with their Safe token allocation. GnosisDAO only votes and delegates with their vested Safe token. SafeDAO and Gnosis do not vote nor delegate with their joint treasury. b. Delegated voting power Delegates may vote on behalf of token holders that delegated voting rights to them. Delegation does not restrict token holders from voting themselves; in the event of token holders exercising their voting rights, their vote takes precedence over any vote cast by their delegate. Token holders can delegate or redelegate any time. c. Calculation of voting power The voting power is calculated at the time that the vote starts. Votes can be changed until the voting cycle is over. F. Principles of proposal implementation If proposals approved by SafeDAO are not executed automatically onchain, governance proposals will be directed to SEF for implementation. If proposals are carried out onchain via the Zodiac Reality module, SEF supervises for safety. If a proposal is deemed unsafe or fraudulent, SEF retains the right to veto the implementation and remove it. If a proposal affects SEF’s sphere of responsibility, SEF will assess the proposal to ensure their alignment with the purposes of the foundation and SafeDAO, feasibility for implementation, legal compliance, and overall safety and security. For compliance reasons SEF remains an unobstructed veto right. It will only exercise such right if a proposal does not materially comply with this governance framework, the constitution or legal requirements. If a proposal fails to pass the assessment, SEF retains the option to remove it for resubmission or implement it with certain limitations. In such cases, SEF will provide explanations to SafeDAO regarding the rejection or the restrictions imposed on the proposal. If a proposal passes the assessment, SEF will diligently and in a commercially reasonable manner facilitate its implementation. Proposals that need the technical involvement of SEF shall state this clearly in the proposal template. G. Entry into force To avoid friction with any potential work on further proposals, the framework shall enter into force on the first Monday after the transferability of the Safe token has been enabled. H. Annex 1: Season 1 1120×702 67.3 KB I. Annex 2: Proposal Template [NOTE if Phase 0: Proposals in this section (i.e., phase 0) do not need to follow a certain structure like SEP proposals (i.e., phase 1) need to do. Nevertheless, we advise you to adopt the following template to the extent possible. This helps the reader better understanding your proposal in context and minimizes your workload needed later once the proposal transforms into an SEP.] – Title: Pre-fix: [Draft/Discussion]; write a concise title to be used for referencing the proposal. Authors: List all names of people contributing to this proposal (e.g. legal names, forum usernames, ENS names, email addresses). Created: Date when this SEP was initially created. Format: YYYY-MM-DD Abstract Write a short summary (tl;dr) of the proposal. Keep it as simple and concise as possible. Proposal types State which proposal type this proposal belongs to. Proposal details Share all information and context about this proposal, including: Purpose and Background What problem does it solve? What is the reasoning behind the proposal? What is the goal? Why should SafeDAO care about the proposal? Effects and Impact Analysis What are the effects of the proposal? What are the pros and cons? What are risks? Alternative Solutions What alternative solutions have been considered? Why have they been discarded? Implementation Does the implementation of the proposal require new code? How is the security of the code ensured? How is the implementation of the proposal carried out? Own implementation possible Own implementation but with funding (how much % to implementation) Request for technical support through Safe matter expert: Who is needed? Did you reach out? Is there a roadmap? Open Questions Anything that needs to be cleared up before the community can make an informed decision? Copyright Copyright and related rights waived via CC0. Purpose and background What problem does it solve? The proposal provides a stakeholder mapping and outlines the processes by which they interact with each other. It strives to implement checks and balances while recognizing DAO governance as a novel form of community alignment. What is the goal? The goal is to get high-level buy on the abstract governance structures and to agree on concrete parameters of the first season. Why should SafeDAO care about this proposal? SafeDAO has a genuine interest in their decision making and implementation processes. This is also manifested by the fact that a governance framework is required as an important milestone as a result of SEP3. Effects and Impact Analysis The governance framework will introduce a new level to the hierarchy of norms and thus have an impact on subsequent proposals. To avoid friction with any potential work on further proposals, the framework shall enter into force on the first Monday after the transferability of the Safe token has been enabled. Alternative Solutions No governance framework: Challenging for community members to engage in decision making and implementation without having a basic understanding of the organizational structure. Detailed governance structure beyond a framework: Would take a lot of time research and community alignment. Would assume that there is the “one right” governance concept. It would not take into account that DAO governance is new and ideally tested through trial phases. Technical Implementation In order to implement the dynamic governance framework, settings in Snapshot will have to be changed and potentially new subspaces need to be opened to reflect the various voting systems in the future. Additionally, the forum structure will need to be changed to include the new proposal templates and an analytics dashboard needs to be created to check onchain the voting power of delegates and guardians when signaling under D.V. Proposal discussion and amendments. Open Questions At this stage we are welcoming any feedback to the dynamic governance framework, especially the alternative under E.V. and the specific decision for Season 1