Hello everyone! I am new here, I go by Nigel and I have been aware of Gnosis for awhile now but being in the crypto space since 2013, I have noticed and perhaps others here have too that there already exists a SAFE Network, developed by a Scottish tech firm, Maidsafe.
Perhaps you recognize the name Maidsafe or Maidsafecoin which was one of the first ICOs launched by Mastercoin, later Omni. Again these are the “old days” in crypto but where I take issue is that Maidsafe has been around a long time and still actively develops the Safe Network under the original branding.
There is even a white paper for a Safecoin by Maidsafe.
Surely the @mods and @GnosisDAO, founders/marketing/etc have simply overlooked this, right?
Myself and others participate within the active Safe Network community (amongst others in the crypto sphere) and many of us long term members with ties to many others.
Heck even Brock Pierce being involved first hand in Mastercoin has ties to the Safe Network/Safe Protocol, being an early investor in the ICO.
Anyways, obviously I wish this project much success but I don’t think lifting branding, even if unintentionally, is a good idea…
If the founders or marketing team want to reach out to the Maidsafe team, they are very receptive and welcoming folks that can be pinged over at the Safe Network forum. Perhaps CEO @ dirvine or COO @ JimCollinson would be good contacts.
There is a limit to how many links per post for new community members so just going to share the link to safenetforum.org if anyone is interested in reaching out.
Not to pile on here, but word of Gnosis potentially infringing on the branding of MaidSafe’s Safe Network project is making its way around the Safe Network Community. Given MaidSafe has been working on this project since 2006, it’s probably a good idea to get in touch with their team at https://safenetforum.org/.
Yeah, why don’t we see how we can work together and avoid collisions with a pre-existing protocol, or stepping on each others toes and bogging either project down. That’s the last thing we want!
Would have been nice if we got an announcement here from the team rather than the DAO forum being a bit of an afterthought. And maybe some releasing more specifics about the $SAFE distribution for $GNO holders/stakers and Safe users alongside the fundraising announcement?
Gnosis Safe has been run, funded and supported by GnosisDao since it’s inception.
It’s a huge shame that now it’s being spun out, Safe team have decided not to include Safe users on Gnosis Chain, given it’s arguably the main GnosisDao product at this stage.
CowSwap included Gnosis Chain at launch and airdropped tokens to smaller recipients on GC, and in doing so helped onboard many new users to the chain.
Hard to see this as anything other than stab in the back to GnosisDao and it’s supporters on GC to be excluded, and I hope @lukas_gnosis you’ll reconsider or take the time to explain here on the forum why that was the case. And whether anyone from GnosisDao was consulted.
There was just a different approach taken here. GnosisDAO gets 15% of the total SAFE supply and there’s another 5% in a joint SafeDAO <> GnosisDAO treasury which can be used for airdrops like this. This approach gives GNO holder more flexibility on deciding how a Gnosis Chain specific airdrop should look like. This was part of the GIP-29 proposal from the beginning which has passed GnosisDAO, not sure where the concerns are coming from now.
Seems pretty obvious that at a minimum Gnosis Safe would include Gnosis Chain, their own project, in addition to Ethereum. That’s where the concern is coming from. Looking at the Gnosis Safe forum at the moment and it’s a fairly widely held concern.
Value of assets held in safes on GC is tiny, the overall amount allocated would be miniscule. Distributing smaller airdrops on GC would help further build out the ecosystem. Sure Safe is being spun out into a separate project from GnosisDao but Gnosis funded Safe team and Safe team was staffed by Gnosis contributors up til this point. So why not treat GC on an equal footing? Hell even a lesser footing, rather than just shunning.
And as for the 15% for GnosisDAO and 5% for the SafeDAO <> GnosisDAO treasury;
Suggesting that GC Safe users distribution could come from there and not the user distribution is in effect saying “I’m not including them, if you care you can and take it out of your share.”
It’s clearly showing no interest in Gnosis Chain and Safe users there, and GnosisDao community should be able to expect more from their contributors.
Gnosis Chain safes should definitely count. Ethereum gas fees have been prohibitively expensive for the past couple years and many of us moved to side chains or L2’s for that very reason. Most of my assets are on Gnosis Chain rather than mainnet and that’s why I have a safe there.
Are the Gnosis and Safe teams planning to propose a specific airdrop for Safe users on Gnosis Chain, or do they consider their part done in launching SAFE token for mainnet users only and are now leaving it to the DAO.