3rd Snapshot Proposal - AIP: Assange Family Role in the AssangeDAO | 阿桑奇家族在AssangeDAO的角色


The term “Assange Family” will be used in this proposal. It is interchangeable with the terms “Consensus Unit” and “Advisory Council”.

Confirm or revoke the Assange Family’s ability to veto proposals that they determine to be potentially harmful to Julian Assange or to his legal defense.

Proposal Details
The AssangeDAO was constituted with the Assange Family governance layer to protect Julian Assange and his legal defense. The Assange Family (Gabriel Shipton, Stella Moris, and Jennifer Robinson) are also the DAO’s line of communication with Assange. In exchange, they also endorse and provide credibility and publicity to the DAO. They request to maintain the ability to veto (reject) future proposals which they believe may be harmful to Julian Assange or harmful to his legal defense. If this proposal moves forward with confirming the Assange Family as having veto power, the terms ‘Consensus Unit’ and ‘Advisory Council’ will be replaced by the term ‘Assange Family’ for the sake of simplicity. Before the Assange Family vetoes a proposal, they should first work with the proposer publicly on the forum to voice their concern. To initiate a veto, at least one member of the Assange Family must make a forum post to announce the veto. In the unlikely event that the Assange Family has an internal disagreement on a veto, the decision of 2 out of the 3 Assange Family members will be honored.

The Assange family will NOT have control over the DAO treasury or the ability to use the treasury’s funds without the DAO’s approval.

The Assange Family is an asset to the AssangeDAO. There are forces at work that would try to undermine the DAO and use it against Julian Assange. With the Assange Family having the ability to veto proposals it guarantees that the DAO cannot be undermined or manipulated into doing something that could be harmful to Julian Assange or to his legal defense.

If the Assange Family’s role is revoked, the DAO risks losing official support from Julian Assange and his family.
If the Assange’s Family’s role is confirmed, the DAO risks having certain future proposals rejected if the Assange Family so chooses.



在本提案中,将使用 "阿桑奇家族” (Assange Family)一词。它可与 "共识单位” (Consensus Unit)和 "咨询委员会”(Advisory Council)等术语互换。


AssangeDAO是以阿桑奇家族的治理层构成的,以保护朱利安·阿桑奇和他的法律辩护。阿桑奇家族(Gabriel Shipton, Stella Moris, and Jennifer Robinson)是DAO与朱利安·阿桑奇的沟通渠道。作为交换,他们也为DAO背书并为其提供信誉和宣传。他们要求保持否决权以否决(拒绝)他们认为可能对朱利安·阿桑奇有害或对他的法律辩护有害的提案。如果该提案确认阿桑奇家族拥有否决权,为了简单起见,将用"阿桑奇家族 "一词取代现行的"共识单位 "和 "顾问委员会 "两个词。在阿桑奇家族否决一项提案之前,他们应该首先在论坛上与提案人公开合作,表达他们的担忧。要启动否决权,至少有一名阿桑奇家族的成员必须在论坛上发帖宣布否决。万一阿桑奇家族内部对否决存在分歧,那么结果取决于三位阿桑奇家族成员中的两位。






I think this needs narrow construction, to what sorts of proposals, their veto power has jurisdiction over. Because like many rules, a “causal chain” form of post hoc rationalizations, can allow a veto of almost any proposal deemed “not in Assange’s interest”, including whether to remove members for misconduct, or whether to remove their own power, or whether to spend money in the treasury.

They should properly have a veto regarding any representations to a court or government tribunal related to the government’s case against Assange, or any representations to the public that Assange or his family endorses a particular thing, for example political ideologies or public figures. This stems from Assange’s right to choose his own legal representative, and his legal right of “publicity” Publicity | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Moreover internal decisions such as whether to sell juicebox tokens, multi-sig elections, and other such matters, are not in the jurisdiction of the Assange family, because those belong to the rights of shareholders. I would like to remind everyone, that DAO’s are securities SEC Issues Report - Declares DAO Tokens to be Securities | Cassels.com, and therefore a veto over shareholder rights is not lawful.

1 Like