# \[Proposal\] Whitelist the Aave Companies’ Gnosis Safe multisig for Balancer's VoteEscrow

**URL:** <https://forum.balancer.fi/t/proposal-whitelist-the-aave-companies-gnosis-safe-multisig-for-balancers-voteescrow/3047>\
**Category:** General Proposal\
**Created:** [April 22, 2022, 1:01pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/proposal-whitelist-the-aave-companies-gnosis-safe-multisig-for-balancers-voteescrow/3047 "2022-04-22T13:01:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![markus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/markus/32/880_2.png) [@markus](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/markus)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2022, 3:39pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/proposal-whitelist-the-aave-companies-gnosis-safe-multisig-for-balancers-voteescrow/3047/2 "2022-04-22T15:39:58Z")

</div>

Thank you for your proposal, @AaveCompanies

> [@AaveCompanies](#):
>
> No significant risks have been identified in connection with the proposed transaction.

The concern with whitelisting Gnosis Safes is that, IIUC, there are no guarantees that a system cannot be built on top of it that tokenizes veBAL. In other words, trust considerations aside, it is equivalent to whitelisting a contract without seeing its source code first. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

Have you considered adopting a solution like [Tribe’s](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/proposal-allow-tribe-dao-to-lock-vebal/2888)?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/proposal-whitelist-the-aave-companies-gnosis-safe-multisig-for-balancers-voteescrow/3047)._