1st Snapshot Proposal - Assange DAO mission - Feb 23, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC for 3 days

The first Snapshot vote will take place in exactly 2 days from now (unless cancelled).

The question is:

Should AssangeDAO continue to focus on its founding premise ‘Free Assange by All Means Necessary’ or Pursue other Activities?
Options are:

  1. Mission remains to Free Assange
  2. Pursue other activities

Voting system Single choice voting
Start date Feb 23, 2022, 4:36 PM
End date Feb 26, 2022, 4:36 PM



I object to this framing, because “all means necessary”, could include paramilitary prison breaks.

Moreover i do not believe that these are mutually exclusive

I object to this proposal in its current form, because it offers a false dichotomy, or not enough explanation. I do not believe that anyone has actually advocated abandoning the goals to free Assange, though I cannot be certain because I am banned from the discord. To the extent that option 2 is meant to be a summary of my proposal, It is not an accurate summary of my proposal. My AIP proposal does not fit inside of either option, because my proposal contains both options see AIP: Governance proposal - Civil Rights Org - #12 by endomorphosis

Therefore I propose the following options:

*The only mission is to Free Assange.
*Free Assange, among other activities.
*Only pursue other activities.

The devs and people speaking on the twitter spaces and discord have been very clear that they do not support any sort of violence.

No, the purpose of the vote is to see if the community wants to focus on Assange or focus more generally, for example on Justice.

If the focus is not on Assange, the DAO could then say vote if they want to rename to JusticeDAO or something.

1 Like

I understand, but please consider explaining that, because persons who are using google translate from english to chinese, may not understand that. see also the source of that phrase “by all means necessary” By any means necessary - Wikipedia

It is generally considered to leave open all available tactics for the desired ends, including violence.

I believe that if you do not include enough explanation or options, and maintain a false dichotomy, that it represents a breach of contract in the issuance of securities on the website https://assangedao.org/

The DAO is fully community led

Because the core team is artificially excluding the range of proposals that I can submit, by characterizing it as no longer supporting Assange, instead as of adopting a broader mission, so that the DAO can develop the treasury and also assist Assange.

如此垃圾的Snapshot 提案,利用选项来误导社区。依据最新Vitalik专访:AssangeDao为 Julian Assange 的法律辩护提供资金,可能最终扩展到超出这个范围,这取决于社区的情况决定它会是什么。 而这次snapshot提案选项中竟然如此不严谨。我们需要扩展到拯救Assange的范围。让AssangeDao发展成为JusticeDao

Google translate:
Such a rubbish Snapshot proposal, using options to mislead the community. According to the latest Vitalik interview: AssangeDao, which funds Julian Assange’s legal defense, may eventually expand beyond that, depending on the circumstances of the community to determine what it will be. And this time the snapshot proposal options are so imprecise. We need to expand to save Assange. Let AssangeDao develop into JusticeDao

What do you propose the first proposal is then?

  1. Rename the DAO to JusticeDAO or leave it as AssangeDAO?

Then if JusticeDAO - the community would come up with a new mission and vote on it?

Then if AssangeDAO - the community would vote on a new mission/vision and vote on it?

If the core mission remains to Free Assange - it does not mean that proposals can’t go up that aren’t directly related to Assange.

Lots of things are connected to Assange, directly or indirectly, like freedom of speech and information, whistleblowers, WikiLeaks, Cypherpunks. And these things can extend the Assange community.

But we must be careful about mission creep. Free Assange is not a limitation, but on the contrary.

If instead the mission becomes more indeterminate, there will be endless discussions about whether the DAO should throw its efforts behind things that are completely unrelated to Assange and what he stands for.

The Assange family have made it clear that if the mission is to Free Assange and the DAO does remains focused on Assange, they will have the DAOs full support as well as Julian’s full support.

Conversely, if the DAO votes to not focus on Assange as it’s core mission, they may not offer their full support to the DAO as they spend 100% of their time campaigning solely to Free Julian Assange.

The imprisonment of Julian Assange is not just the imprisonment of one man, his extradition case sets a massively dangerous legal precedent. Freedom for Julian is freedom for us all.

Edit: If you have a better vision/mission statement for “Free Julian Assange and support projects/people/initiatives for in which he stands for and supports” then I am definitely open to hearing this.

I think this is difficult to define to avoid scope creep.

1 Like

I agree about mission creep. But I see the dichotomy as whether Assange is the client or the patron.

If Assange is the client, what limits are ability to take on other projects, is whether or not it creates a conflict of interest with our #1 client, because we are unable to satisfy our obligations to him. However we are responsible for providing products or services to clients, not only Assange, to satisfy our duty to token holders.

If Assange is the patron, we operate under his blessing for his benefit, and we may betraying the duty to our patron by engaging in other business, so he can limit what sort of activities we are responsible for. However he is responsible for taking care of replenishing the treasury, through the NFT auctions or other ideas that he has mentioned in the previous discussions, to satisfy our duty to the token holders.

My impression, though that impression may be incorrect, is that Assange requires his patronage of the DAO, if the DAO is going to bear his name. My other impression is that there are large number of token holders who care about Assange, the token price, or both.

Hmm, could you explain the difference vs Client or Patron in this scenario? Is it possible he is neither?

‘A person who gives financial or other support to a person, organization, or cause.’

‘a person or organization using the services of a lawyer or other professional person or company.’

In the case of Assange DAO I would think he is currently neither. His legal team indirectly received the financial benefit of the Charity auction. (Pak+JA created NFT, DAO formed and bid on it, Pak donated 100% to Wau Holland, Wau Holland benefits his legal/defense).

He was responsible for helping create the NFT but I don’t really think he was ‘using’ the services of the DAO in any way - only his legal/defense benefited from what the DAO did on it’s own.

And currently he has not given financial or other support to our organization, although his family, WikiLeaks and others have helped promote the DAO greatly.

Gabriel Shipton had mentioned that there were ideas floating around with possible future NFTs (either from Julian or artists who support Assange) that could potentially benefit the DAO treasury. It would seem then that Julian and his family understand that the DAO treasury needs funds to operate to continue it’s mission.

I just personally think that if the scope of the mission of the DAO is too broad then the DAO won’t be as successful - we sort of have this ‘niche’ of Julian Assange and since we are using his name, I think his freedom should be our #1 goal.

I think the DAO can put forward a lot of different proposals that could directly or indirectly help lead to Julian’s freedom. Lots of things are connected to Assange and his case, like freedom of speech and information, cryptography, whistleblowing, WikiLeaks, etc. and I think these can also extend the AssangeDAO community without the scope falling away from it’s main mission.

I disagree, I think the entire reason why the organization has the current value, is because the Assange family gave us their endorsement to use their name. It would be impossible for me to even consider trying to create a DAO civil rights org without that kind of endorsement. Moreover how we would treat Assange in achieving the justice that he deserves, reflects upon our ability as an organization to actually deliver results, and is what will drive people to use this DAO’s legal assistance.

The dichotomy in my mind, is that Assange’s family in previous statements seemed closed to the idea of using his name to endorse a project that he can’t manage, or but have also seemed to say they are supportive of what we are allowed to propose and to do, while maintaining their endorsement.

See e.g. Future of AssangeDAO + Assange Family involvement

Julians family are 100% committed to freeing Julian and if AssangeDAO follows its original mission, then we and Julian are 100% behind it. If AssangeDAO choses another mission the family needs to continue its work to free Julian undistracted.

See e.g. Meeting notes from Feb 20th, 6am UTC Twitter Spaces with Assange Family and AssangeDAO

Family is 100% fighting to Free Julian, as long as the DAO remains 100% focused on that mission, the DAO has the family and Julian’s full support.


It’s really the Family’s role in the community to make sure that any proposal is put forward is to do no harm to Julian or his defense. It’s up to the community to decide what actions and proposals to put forward. The family’s role is to be the direct communication with Julian, promote the DAO and ensure that no proposals could harm Julian or his defense.

There are many good ideas in the discord and the forum. We should put them through the community governance system and act on them.

It’s not really a veto process, it should be a back and forth process (if the family sees a proposal that might be harmful to Julian or his case), if there is portions of the proposal that would harm Julian or harm his defense, or establish some legal precedent that is unhelpful, then we can work with the drafters of of the proposal to modify it, so that so that it would it would not harm Julian so I think it’s not helpful to frame it as a veto that we will be using at will. We are here to work with the community to free Julian. Not to work against the community.

Take small steps to go far.

Don’t take on too much in infancy.Focus on Assange is the best way to sublime the Dao.

A voice from Chinese Community

Should we do 3rd snapshot regarding changing the name of the DAO so that stops being a question and we can move on?

Snapshot: Keep AssangeDAO or change to JusticeDAO?

By KEEP could be at least until Assange is free then maybe vote again. Altho I think it will be better to keep it as a tribute even after Assange case ends. Also JusticeDAO can go so many different direction that will make DAO much weaker.

For me that’s not necessary, the first snapshot asking if we should “FOCUS” or not, that snapshot will tell us about the decision of the community.

but probably people will be still nagging about it and it will be better to have this out of the way once for all… or could that be added to the snapshot before votes open?

with a note that DAO name won’t change until Assange case is over, then after we could vote about on that?

I don’t like the word games. The proposal should be rewritten, as including or excluding certain future choices, I.E. we’re taking a specific defined path in the future, rather than an amorphous feel good guidance statement.

Congrats everyone. Our mission remains focused on Freeing Assange.

Mission remains to Free Assange

Pursue other Activities
Quorum4.5B / 3.5B