NXM Community fund has a big amount of $safe tokens and a vested interest to sell them to buyback $wnxm. There is an ongoing proposal to make the token transferable, which imo would be in the DAOs interest to buyback $wnxm sooner rather than later.
So i propose that we claim $safe and vote for making $safe transferable.
Our proposal is live Snapshot
As the SAFE delegate for the mutual (and others who have delegated to me), I’ve already voted on this Snapshot proposal. There was previously a Nexus Mutual DAO Snapshot vote where members voted to delegate SAFE voting power to me as a representative of the mutual.
I’ve already cast my vote in this Snapshot proposal in favour of Make No Changes/Decide Later, and I don’t see any benefit of enabling transferability before the claim period ends in December. You can see my vote on the SafeDAO Snapshot proposal.
SEP #2 closes on 10 November @ Nov 10, 2022, 7:14 AM EST, so the above Snapshot vote wouldn’t resolve until after SEP #2 ends.
I don’t see any material reason to enable transferability ahead of 27 December— the end of the claim period. In recent months, we’ve bought back a significant amount of wNXM below book value. With the proposal, the mutual would sell ~70k SAFE at both targets for a total of $59,500. I’d rather allow the SafeDAO community to claim their SAFE before the claim period ends and then unpause the token contract. Again, given the state of the market, it’s unlikely SAFE hits our targets and it would impact those who haven’t claimed their SAFE yet.
Voting to unpause the token contract before the claim period ends, imo, wouldn’t be a great way to represent the mutual within SafeDAO governance at the DAO’s start. There’s $31b stored in Safe smart contracts, and I think there’s a genuine vested interest to be an active, productive member in early governance to work with SafeDAO and distribute more cover to Safe owners in the future. I’d be more comfortable waiting until after the claim period ends, and then the DAO treasury can sell SAFE at the price targets set out in the previous signalling vote.
Great points, might make sense on some key gov proposals to do metagov temp-checks, or what do you think?
Going forward, I’d be happy to do that. In this case, I’m going to stick with my initial vote, especially given the market downturn.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.