SafeSnap

The core security of SafeSnap depends on the oracle (often a Gnosis Safe multi-sig) that bridges the off-chain vote result on-chain. This creates a central point of trust. Key risks include:

• Oracle manipulation: If the signers are compromised, they could relay an incorrect vote result.
• Data availability: The proposal details and final vote tally must be permanently and verifiably stored off-chain (e.g., on IPFS) to prevent tampering before execution.

The execution strategy defines the exact conditions for a successful vote and the transactions to execute. Critical vulnerabilities can arise here:

• Insufficient validation: The strategy must rigorously validate all proposal parameters (e.g., recipient addresses, token amounts) on-chain to prevent malicious payloads.
• Reentrancy & gas limits: The executed transactions must be audited for common smart contract vulnerabilities and must operate within gas limits to avoid failed execution.

SafeSnap implementations often use timelocks or execution delays as a critical security feature. This provides a final defense layer:

• Review period: A delay between vote finalization and execution allows the community to audit the exact on-chain transactions before they run.
• Window expiration: Proposals typically have a limited execution window. If not executed in time, they expire, preventing stale proposals from being executed much later under different network conditions.

SafeSnap decouples voting from execution, which introduces a state finality risk.

• Cross-chain finality: For DAOs on L2s or sidechains using Snapshot on Ethereum mainnet, the security depends on the bridge or messaging layer used to relay the vote result. A compromised bridge could alter the message.
• Replay attacks: Mechanisms must be in place to ensure the same off-chain vote cannot be executed on-chain more than once.

While Snapshot provides off-chain sybil resistance through token-weighted voting, SafeSnap's on-chain execution must correctly map this power.

• State synchronization: The on-chain execution strategy must reference the correct token snapshot block to determine voting power. Using an incorrect or manipulable block height is a critical flaw.
• Delegation consistency: If the underlying token supports delegation (e.g., ERC-20Votes), the off-chain vote and on-chain execution context must align on delegatee power.

The SafeSnap module itself is a smart contract that can often be upgraded or paused by an admin.

• Centralization risk: Admin keys (often a multi-sig) that can unilaterally upgrade the module or halt execution represent a significant trust assumption.
• Transparent governance: Changes to the module's code or parameters should themselves go through a rigorous governance process, not solely rely on admin discretion.

SafeSnap operates as a module for the Gnosis Safe multi-signature wallet. It allows a Safe to be configured to execute transactions automatically based on the outcome of a Snapshot vote. This creates a two-step governance process:

• Step 1: Off-chain Voting - Community votes on Snapshot, a gasless platform.
• Step 2: On-chain Execution - Once a proposal passes, the Safe's designated executor (a trusted entity or a Reality.eth oracle) can submit the transaction for execution, requiring only a single signature from the executor instead of the Safe's full multi-signature threshold.

To prevent a single executor from acting maliciously, SafeSnap integrates with the Reality.eth oracle. This oracle acts as a verification layer that checks if the off-chain vote results are correct before allowing execution. The process involves:

• Bonded Questions - The proposal's outcome is posted as a question on Reality.eth.
• Dispute Period - A challenge period (e.g., 1-7 days) allows anyone to dispute incorrect results by posting a bond.
• Finalized Answer - If undisputed, the oracle provides the final, canonical answer that the Safe module accepts for execution, adding a layer of cryptographic security.

The most common application of SafeSnap is for Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) treasury operations. It allows DAOs to manage large treasuries held in a Gnosis Safe without requiring multi-sig signers to manually execute every approved proposal. Examples include:

• Token Transfers - Distributing grants or payments.
• Contract Interactions - Updating protocol parameters or smart contract addresses.
• DeFi Operations - Executing liquidity provision or investment strategies voted on by token holders.

SafeSnap has become a standard infrastructure component for leading DAOs seeking secure and efficient governance. Notable adopters include:

• Uniswap - Uses it to execute treasury management and grant distribution proposals.
• Aave - Employs it for parameter changes and ecosystem grant approvals.
• Compound - Utilizes the module for protocol upgrades and community initiatives.
• Balancer - Leverages it for liquidity mining and gauge weight votes.

A complete SafeSnap setup involves several interconnected components:

• Snapshot Space - Hosts the proposal and vote.
• Gnosis Safe - Holds the assets and has the SafeSnap module enabled.
• Reality.eth Oracle - Provides the verified answer for on-chain execution.
• Executor - An address (often a Gelato Network relayer or a dedicated community multi-sig) that calls the executeTransaction function on the Safe module after the oracle finalizes the result. The workflow ensures execution is permissionless but conditional on verified vote outcomes.

While powerful, SafeSnap has inherent trade-offs and limitations:

• Execution Latency - The dispute delay from Reality.eth adds a mandatory waiting period (days) between voting and execution.
• Executor Trust - While minimized, some trust is placed in the executor not to censor transactions, though they cannot execute invalid ones.
• Gas Costs - The final on-chain execution still incurs gas fees, which must be paid by the executor or reimbursed by the DAO.
• Complexity - The setup involves multiple systems, increasing the technical overhead for deployment and maintenance.

The specific smart contract that enables the SafeSnap workflow. It is the on-chain component that:

• Validates Proofs: Checks the merkle proof submitted by an executor against the vote result finalized by the Reality.eth oracle.
• Proposes Transactions: Allows any address to queue a transaction that corresponds to a successful off-chain vote.
• Executes on Safe: If validation passes, it triggers the Gnosis Safe to execute the proposed transaction, requiring only the Module's approval (not individual signer signatures).

The final, two-step process that moves a decision from off-chain to on-chain.

1. Bridging: The verified result of a Snapshot vote (a merkle root) is reported and finalized on-chain via the Reality.eth oracle. This creates a single source of truth.
2. Execution: An executor calls the executeTransaction function on the SafeSnap Module, providing:
   • The transaction data (target, value, calldata).
   • A merkle proof linking this transaction to the finalized vote result. The Module validates the proof and, if correct, executes the transaction via the Safe.

The broader security model that SafeSnap exemplifies. It operates on the principle that votes are correct by default but can be challenged if fraudulent.

• Optimistic Assumption: The system assumes the oracle's reported answer (the vote result) is correct.
• Challenge Period: A time window (e.g., 1-7 days) where anyone can dispute an incorrect result by staking a bond.
• Security through Bonds: Malicious actors are deterred by the high cost of losing their bond, while honest reporters are rewarded. This creates a cryptoeconomic security layer for off-chain decisions.