[REVIEW] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] [Updated template] Safe

Is this necessary? Safe just had a massive fundraise, which is excellent news, but I don’t see how this $100k is necessary for this grant rn. It could just be plugged in later for the RGPF, rewarded based on your impact, which will be quite large anyway.

The distribution is somewhat vague within the categories themselves, but I can see in another comment that your strategy is still under review. Any update on that front?


Hey @Bobbay_StableNode, we only launched yesterday with the DAO, so the full OP distribution strategy will be reviewed at a later date. Excuse the lack of deadline there, but it’s early DAO days for us compared to Optimism.

As @OPUser mentioned, the foundation outlined that dev funding is within the guidelines, and the team reached out to us directly to make this proposal. Given the amount of TVL we currently secure (over $1.1 billion) on OP, we believe it’s fair to request funding (0.01%) for future maintenance of the Safe services in the coming years.

We’re happy to get allocated less in RGDF as a result, in order to get budget clarity on our OP services in the future. Seeing as we still need to run the following:

  • Host Optimism version of the Safe UI
  • Run the Optimism Safe transaction service
  • Maintain the Optimism Safe App Store
  • Provide 24/7 user support on Safe <> OP
  • Deploy new contract versions to Optimism

I appreciate that your DAO days have just begun! Thanks for the insight; I have no issue with dev funding, as its within the guidelines. With that logic of 0.01%, that’s more than fair, I’m happy to support this proposal.

1 Like

nice, would love to see

I still support your proposal, however I think you need to repost it under “phase 1, Cycle 7” for us to move forward, or if an edit works I’ll submit my approval again just in case.

As an Optimism delegate with voting power above the required threshold I believe this proposal is ready. Delegate Commitments - #71 by MoneyManDoug

1 Like

@mastermojo @OPUser - any chance you could also re-submit your approval now that it’s been moved to cycle-7?

Thank you for the tag. Would love to support but I dont hold 0.5% of voting power anymore.

We are an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power (1.18% of the vote), and we believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote. Delegate Commitments - #69 by fig

You guys need to make sure you post your two delegates approval to the above post. Doug and myself gave you the OK. The deadline is tomorrow to get this posted.

1 Like

No need for me to repost my approval; its been good this whole time.

Snapshot vote is here. Would appreciate you casting your vote or abstaining! @MoneyManDoug @mastermojo @fig

Will the quorum for GF cycle 2 still be 30% as per OPerating-manual/manual.md at main · ethereum-optimism/OPerating-manual · GitHub?

1 Like

Abstaining as I hold (locked) $SAFE tokens - conflict of interest.

1 Like

I’m abstaining from this vote since my fund has Safe tokens from the airdrop.

Safe provides critical infrastructure for teams building on Optimism. This is a well-balanced proposal that focuses on incentivizing development. Glad to see it receive broad support.

1. Presentation

We are an officially recognized Tooling Governance Committee, responsible for assessing proposals related to tooling and infrastructure (wallets, bridges etc.).

2- About the project

The Gnosis Safe is the most popular multi-signature smart contract wallet that allows users to define a list of owner/signer accounts and a threshold number of signers required to confirm a transaction. Once the threshold of owner accounts have confirmed a transaction, the Safe transaction can be executed.

There is not much to explain gnosis is one of the most used and well known applications in the ecosystem.

3- About the following

First [Draft] of the Safe proposal was received in the previous season, and later they updated to the current proposal. After received the appropiate proposal to this current cycle.

4- About the proposal valuation

  • Added Value: good. Gnosis Safe is fundamental to the ecosystem. There are currently no competitors that have achieved Safe’s adoption and usability.
  • Impact or expected usage: high. it’s an important tool for the Optimism ecosystem to develop. Both users and dapps and DAOs make constant use of Gnosis Safe.
  • Current Status: ready. Gnosis has a long history and is a consolidated product. which is now at a stage where it needs to build around it.
  • Expenditure plan and distribution: appropiate. We need to discuss about funds for development and allocation for DAO (40 and 20). Also, more explanation about distribution for dApps.
  • Amount requested: medium. The requested amount is 500k OP tokens, which is a reasonable amount and in line with its distribution plan.

5. KPIs and impact tracking

To the current plan and distribution, we believe that to make the appropiate following of this proposals, these points will need to be required:

  • Number of dApps succesfully adopting Safe on its UI.
  • Number of dApps integrating as Optimism Safe Apps, focusing on the most populars according to Optimism Dune Analytics.
  • Executing a correct distribution criteria for OP distribution for Safe users.


We apologize for the delays during this cycle. Our work was mostly done on time but we had delays with the final confirmation from each member to properly publish our recommendations with the proper consensus (this was due to devcon week, but we recognize this is not an excuse). We promise that this situation will not happen again and we will carry out the respective improvements of the process and we will share our learnings received during this cycle.

Thank you for patience.


Voted For, Safe is well known and used protocol on whole Ethereum ecosystem.

Voted yes - Following the Tooling Committee Recommendation. Safe is a quality product that has been around forever, happy to see this proposal.

Though I am a member of the tooling committee I abstained both from the recommendation and the decision. I will also abstain from voting as I have invested in safe and as such I believe I have a conflict of interest here.


Voting: Yes

Following our own Tooling committee recommendation, it’s worth to say that we’re happy to support Safe in its attempt to grow even more on Optimism.