4th Snapshot Proposal - Add Temporary Multisigs

As per Draft proposal for the election of a provisional additional Multisig 选举临时多签人的提案草案

A new Snapshot Propsal has been added to help speed up AssangeDAO governance proposals by adding 2 temp Multisigs.
(Unless the community wants it cancelled, in which case I can cancel it.)

https://snapshot.org/#/assangedao.eth/proposal/0x92cbf2491774f871f41a7d779473d870cd21879d9ef833b61bb083a962f1791f

Elect bZ and/or Zylo as temp Multisig?

Voting system Single choice voting
Start date Mar 10, 2022, 1:46 AM
End date Mar 13, 2022, 1:46 AM
Snapshot 14,343,284
Quorum 3.5B

Proposal options (single choice):
Option 1: Select both bZ and Zylo as temporary Multisigs.
Option 2: Select only bZ as a temporary Multisig.
Option 3: Select only Zylo as a temporary Multisig.
Option 4: Refuse to make bZ and Zylo to be temporary Multisig.

5 Likes

Thanks for adding it Zylo : )

I would like to add a few comments here:

I disagree with the reference in this proposal to the “Chinese community”. No other group of persons claims to represent a whole country and demands special rights within the AssangeDAO. I have received messages from several persons claiming to be Chinese who state that this Chinese Community and bZ does not represent them. I have received several messages about the aims of this “Chinese community” that I hope to post in a different post. There is no person claiming to represent the “Russian community”, there is the “American community”, “Japanese community” etc- there is only ONE AssangeDAO community. I find it preposterous for anyone to claim their represent the “Chinese community”.

The reason provided here for asking to temporarily add two multisigs outside of the governance discussions is misconceived. The proposal to burn the access key to juicebox in order to stop any possibility to mint new Justice tokens should not have been added as a proposal to the DAO at this time as it did not relate to the initial governance setup. It meant that a serious proposal such as this was decided by the rudimentary governance mechanism we set up at the beginning to decide on the future of governance. It was put up after severe mobbing and pressure from the “Chinese Community” although it was entirely clear that this matter was only to be decided AFTER the governance mechanism had been set up. What is the negative effect of this proposal: persons who burnt their tokens accidentally cannot be made whole again as the juicebox mechanism is now frozen. As the proposal was not relating with governance, a decision had to be taken whether it should at all be implemented given the serious consequences to several persons who donated to the AssangeDAO - and now have no voice. Here it is noteworthy that it is “this Chinese Community” that claims to have no voice, but who forced this matter through without regard to those people.

I wholeheartedly disagree with what I consider undue pressure and misframing of the situation. This however does not mean that I oppose the addition of additional members, especially Zylo who is a trustworthy and very dedicated member of the AssangDAO.

3 Likes

I totally agree with you @Silke , I am a Chinese, but I don’t feel I belong to the “Chinese community” here, this is a narrow and biased view and goes against the spirit of DAO being cross-border and cross-government. Yes, no one person or group of people should have special rights here, we should be united as one and not be divided.
The core team members should not give in to pressure to do things that go against their principles.

2 Likes

Agree with everything @Silke said and also don’t understand why the last 2 of 4 tweets of our official AssangeDAO were to promoting and pointing people to an AssangeDAO Chinese Community Twitter account. AssangeDAO is one and should not be divided. Not sure who decide that and posted but we should set rules about what should be posted as it speaks for all of us.

1 Like

The ability to unilaterally reject proposals is the ability to control the #AssangeDAO. If you can stop something from being used in any way other than how you want, then you effectively control it. It’s your way or the highway.

1 Like

It’s a governance layer and the DAO was founded with it - it’s always been clear on assangedao.org website.

If you don’t like it then you don’t have to participate in the Assange DAO.

DAO vote 91.46% Assange Family has veto. that not a DAO. Only reason I’m talking about this still is I realized

@AssangeDAO

tweeted at me a few days ago to say the family has no power except for the absolute veto, which hilariously Twitter hid under one of those “see more tweets” things that you have to click.

Going forward:

  1. We should be careful to avoid the phrases ‘English Community’ and ‘Chinese Community’ going forward - we want people to see that we are one community. (Especially we shouldn’t use these phrases in proposals)

  2. It’s good to have English twitter + Chinese twitter + any other languages where people want to run them.

  3. In the Official Proposal texts on Snapshot they should be English only - and link to the Forum where it can be in multiple languages on the forum.

4 Likes

When the governance framework has not been completed yet, the multi-sigs have already decided to max-bid Pak NFT while most of the community members do not agree with such. Furthermore, the term “Chinese community” or whatsoever is never a big issue as the “Chinese community” has always represented the MAJORITY voice among the Chinese speaking persons. Please, don’t slack off and take the moral high ground to condemn or overlook any positive contributions made by the “Chinese community” which has pushed forward some timely agendas beneficial to the entire community after the max-bid Pak NFT.

1 Like

我同意选择 bZ 和 Zylo为临时多签,请注意是临时。

的确,他们代表不了所有人,但是这两位在过去的时间里,为项目付出了非常多的精力和时间。当前的5位原多签,2位辞职,2位响应慢,而执行提案需要3个多签人。这个提案只是为了保证如果接下来有合理的建议时,能够快速被执行,而不是像之前那样的拖沓。

接下来的工作重点是治理框架的制定,正式的多签人选择标准与投票标准应该会在其中体现。如果你有更好的人选,或者自己想担任某个角色,请在接下来的时间证明自己或者用自己的选票做出选择。

请珍惜阿桑奇道中的任何进展,毕竟事实情况是,真正为之做事的人很少。

同样的情况还会出现在提案人的选择中,目前11位提案人,只有1人在工作。

另外我完全赞同社区保持统一,但是请考虑一个实际情况,在捐款人数中,来自中国的捐款者数量所占的比重,以及我们中的绝大多数人是没有办法自由使用国外网站的,所以很多时候只能选出代表来表达声音。当然我也认为Twitter中文账号似乎没有太大必要存在。

Google Translate:

I agree to choose bZ and Zylo as temporary multi-signature, please note that it is temporary.

It’s true that they don’t represent everyone, but these two have put a lot of energy and time into the project in the past. The current 5 original multi-signers, 2 resigned, 2 slow response, and the implementation of the proposal requires 3 multi-signers. This proposal is only to ensure that if there are passed proposal next, they can be implemented quickly, rather than procrastinating like before.

The next work will focus on the formulation of the governance framework, and the formal multi-signer selection criteria and voting criteria should be reflected in it. If you have a better candidate, or you want to fill a role, please prove yourself at the next time or use your vote to make a choice.

Please cherish any progress in Assange DAO, after all the fact is that very few people actually do anything for it.

The same situation will also appear in the selection of proposers. Currently, out of 11 proposers, only one is working.

In addition, I completely agree that the community should be unified, but please consider a practical situation, the proportion of the number of donors from China in the number of donations, and the fact that most of us have no way to freely use foreign websites, so many At times only representatives can be selected to express their voices. Of course, I also think that the Chinese Twitter account does not seem to be necessary to exist.

2 Likes

only interested in money, even now still want the community to donate more. greed

[image]

1 Like

There is misunderstanding i think, if someone tell you no one care about his voice, then you should encourage him to participate online meetings and forum topics, then everyone will hear his voice. No rumors pls, something like someone told me some bad things about another guy won’t help to build the DAO. Let’s cooperate and build together.

2 Likes

GPT3 translation

我想在这里补充一些评论:

我不同意这个提议中引用的关于“中国社区”的参考。没有其他群体声称代表整个国家,并且要求在阿桑奇DAO中 special rights。我收到了来自几个声称是中国人的人的信息,他们表示这个“中国社区”和bZ不代表他们。我还收到了有关这个“中国社区”目标的几封信,我希望能在另一篇文章里发表。没有人声称代表“俄罗斯社区”,有“美国社区”,“日本社区”等等——阿桑奇DAO的社区只有一个。我觉得有人声称代表“中国社区”是荒谬的。

这个提议中提出的为了temporarily add two multisigs outside of the governance discussions的理由是错误的认识。提议要烧掉access key to juicebox以防止任何新Justice token的 minting possibility的这一条,在这个时候提交到DAO中是不应该的,因为它与初始的 governance setup无关。这意味着一个严重的提议,如此严重的后果是由初始的 governance mechanism决定的——这个mechanism是我们在开始时搭建的,来决定未来的 governance。它是在严重的mobbing和来自“中国社区”的压力下提交的,尽管很明显这个事关只有在 governance mechanism已经建立之后再做决定。这个提议的 negative effect是:那些烧掉token的人无法再恢复他们的权利,因为 juicebox mechanism现在被冻结了。正如这个提议与 governance无关,我们要做的决定是这个提议是否应该实施,考虑到那些捐赠到阿桑奇DAO的人——他们现在没有发言权。值得注意的是,是这个“中国社区”声称没有发言权,但是却强迫这个事情进行,不顾那些人的利益。

我完全不同意这种过度的压力和误解的描述。这 however 不意味着我反对增加 additional members,尤其是Zylo,他是阿桑奇DAO的一个可靠且非常负责任的成员。

google translate:

我想在这里添加一些评论:

我不同意这个提案中提到的“华人社区”。没有其他群体声称代表整个国家并要求在 AssangeDAO 中享有特殊权利。我收到了几个自称是中国人的消息,他们说这个华人社区和 bZ 不代表他们。我收到了几条关于这个“华人社区”的目标的消息,我希望在另一个帖子中发布。没有人声称代表“俄罗斯社区”,有“美国社区”、“日本社区”等——只有一个 AssangeDAO 社区。我觉得任何人声称他们代表“华人社区”是荒谬的。

这里提供的要求在治理讨论之外临时添加两个多重签名的原因是错误的。在这个时候不应该将销毁juicebox 访问密钥以阻止任何铸造新正义代币的可能性的提议作为提议添加到DAO,因为它与初始治理设置无关。这意味着像这样一个严肃的提案是由我们一开始建立的基本治理机制决定的,以决定治理的未来。它是在“华人社区”的激烈围攻和压力下提出的,尽管很明显这件事只有在治理机制建立后才能决定。这个提议的负面影响是什么:由于juicebox机制现在被冻结,意外烧毁代币的人无法再次完整。由于该提案与治理无关,因此必须决定是否应该实施它,因为这对向 AssangeDAO 捐款的几个人造成了严重后果 - 现在没有发言权。这里值得注意的是,是“这个华人社区”自称没有发言权,却不顾那些人,强行完成了这件事。

我全心全意地不同意我认为的过度压力和对局势的错误构想。然而,这并不意味着我反对增加额外的成员,尤其是 Zylo,他是 AssangDAO 中值得信赖且非常敬业的成员。

1 Like

The inherent problem, is that chinese cannot access the forum or the discord without a VPN, and moreover that alot of chinese do not speak english, so they rely on translators in the chinese community that they trust to convey their thoughts to the english speakers, and to provide them updates about the DAO.

2 Likes

1,Usually, when we say “Chinese community” in English, which means “Chinese language community”, which corresponds to the Chinese Channel, English Channel, and Korean Channel in discord。。。
很多时候,当我们用英文说中文社区的时候,意思就是说中文语言的人群,对应的是discord服务器里的中文区,英文区,韩语区等等。。。
2,There is no Chinese version of this forum, which seems not very friendly. Many many chinese communicate in English. for fairness and democracy Would you @Silke consider trying to communicate with us in Chinese?
这个论坛并没有中文版本,很不方便;但很多华语人士仍然用英文和你交流,如果按照你的观念,为了体现公平和民主,你是不是考虑用中文和我们交流比较好?
3,I can’t deputate Chinese community, there is no leader in the dao, but I’m from the Chinese , just like you are from the England. All belong to assangedao in this project, in Chinese, we call it “阿桑奇Dao”,just soso.
我不可能代表华语区所有人,dao里面没有领导,但我来自华语地区,正如你来自英语地区一样,在这个项目里都属于阿桑奇dao,仅此而已。
4,The destruction of mint function is not decided by members of the Chinese-speaking area alone, but by the vote of all members of the community, anyone can choose to vote against it.
In addition, this issuance is just a common practice in the blockchain industry to ensure the safety of all community members, otherwise it’s danger to all community members.
It is different from the personal burnt their tokens. the common sense is that “people cannot blame bad weather for lost bread”.
销毁增发不是单独由华语地区成员决定的,是社区所有人投票决定的,任何人都可以选择投反对票。
另外,去除增发只是一个区块链行业通行保障所有社区成员安全的惯例,不销毁增发反而是对所有人构成潜在危险,和个人自己销毁代币是两回事。人不能因为自己丢了面包就怪罪于天气不好,这是常识。

3 Likes

Dear Silke, I’m sorry to see this review of yours as it distorts a lot of facts. Let me answer your questions step by step
亲爱的Silke, 我很遗憾看到您的上面的评论,因为它歪曲了很多事实。让我一步步回答您的问题。

From you: “I disagree with the reference in this proposal to the “Chinese community”. No other group of persons claims to represent a whole country and demands special rights within the AssangeDAO. ”

我的回答: 我非常同意您说的一点是,只有一个 AssangeDAO 社区。
这里没有你提到的华人社区。有的只是一个说中文的小组(中文群),里面有400多位来自世界各地用中文交流的朋友。这个小组对于任何愿意用中文交流的朋友都是开放的。如果您愿意,也非常欢迎您来我们的中文群.

My answer: I totally agree with you that there is only one AssangeDAO community.
There is no Chinese community you mentioned here. There is only a Chinese-speaking group (Chinese group) with more than 400 friends from all over the world who communicate in Chinese. This group is open to anyone willing to communicate in Chinese. If you want, you are also very welcome to come to our Chinese group.


From you: “I have received messages from several persons claiming to be Chinese who state that this Chinese Community and bZ does not represent them. I have received several messages about the aims of this “Chinese community” that I hope to post in a different post. “

 我的回答: 因为语言的问题,我们这个中文群里的很多英文不好的人需要有人代表我们去和英文组以及阿桑奇家人沟通,bz 就是这位在相互交流上贡献了很多帮助的自愿者,因此,我认为他符合一个成为多签人的基本条件,当然这个是需要通过DAO的提案投票来最终决定,持否定意见的人有权力在投票环节中投出否决票。
再次重申,没有中国社区,只有中文群(说中文的群)

My answer: Because of language problems, many people in our Chinese group who are not good at English need someone to communicate with the English group and the Assange family on our behalf. bz is a volunteer who has contributed a lot to mutual communication. Therefore, I think he meets the basic conditions for becoming a multi-signature person. Of course, this needs to be finalized through DAO’s proposal voting,those with negative opinions have the right to cast a negative vote in the voting session.

Again, there is no Chinese community, only Chinese groups (Chinese-speaking group)。


From you: “The reason provided here for asking to temporarily add two multisigs outside of the governance discussions is misconceived. “

 我的回答: 目前的五位多签人,2位已经离开。为了执行一个有结果的提案,需要3位多签人确认。因此,增加2位多签人来弥补那离开的两位的位置,这个是保证有结果的提案被有效执行的唯一途径。
我不明白,您为什么认为这个是错误的。

My answer:
Of the five current multi-signers, two have left. In order to execute a resulting proposal, 3 multi-signer confirmations are required. Therefore, adding 2 multi-signers to make up for the two left is the only way to ensure that the resulting proposal is effectively implemented.
I don’t understand why you think this is wrong.


From you: “The proposal to burn the access key to juicebox in order to stop any possibility to mint new Justice tokens should not have been added as a proposal to the DAO at this time as it did not relate to the initial governance setup. It meant that a serious proposal such as this was decided by the rudimentary governance mechanism we set up at the beginning to decide on the future of governance. It was put up after severe mobbing and pressure from the “Chinese Community” although it was entirely clear that this matter was only to be decided AFTER the governance mechanism had been set up. “

 我的回答: 老实说,看到上面的文字,我感到很难过。因为它歪曲事实,污蔑了中文群。
到目前为止,已经有三个提案以DAO的治理方式投票通过。这三个提案对于这个DAO的共识凝聚和发展是至关重要的。他们是1.核心使命, 2.关闭通证增发和3.否决权。
这三个重要的提案在论坛上都经历了充分的讨论,然后进入snapshot的投票环节。投票的结果,反应了社区的意志,是整个AssangeDAO社区的意志,中文群只是其中小小一部分。
提案一经投票确认结果,多签人有义务去执行投票结果。这个是DAO的治理过程。
因此我对您评论中叙述的下列文字深表遗憾: “severe mobbing and pressure from the “Chinese Community””
再次重申,没有中国社区,只有中文群(说中文的群)

My answer:
Honestly, seeing the text above makes me sad. Because it distorts the facts and slanders the Chinese group.
So far, three proposals have been voted on with DAO governance. These three proposals are crucial to the consensus cohesion and development of this DAO. They are 1. core mission, 2. closing token issuance and 3. veto power.
These three important proposals have been fully discussed on the forum, and then entered the voting session of the snapshot. The result of the voting reflects the will of the community and is the will of the entire AssangeDAO Community, of which the Chinese group is only a small part.
Once the proposal is voted to confirm the result, the multi-signer is obliged to execute the voting result. This is the governance process of DAO.
Therefore I deeply regret the following text stated in your comment: “severe mobbing and pressure from the “Chinese Community””
Again, there is no Chinese community, only Chinese groups (Chinese-speaking group)


From you: “What is the negative effect of this proposal: persons who burnt their tokens accidentally cannot be made whole again as the juicebox mechanism is now frozen. As the proposal was not relating with governance, a decision had to be taken whether it should at all be implemented given the serious consequences to several persons who donated to the AssangeDAO - and now have no voice. Here it is noteworthy that it is “this Chinese Community” that claims to have no voice, but who forced this matter through without regard to those people. “

 我的回答: 通证增发关闭是非常重要的一个提案。因为Justice通证是捐赠人通过捐赠获得的勋章,是捐赠人捐赠行为产生的价值所在。
如果这个价值不能被保障,一定会影响DAO的共识的凝聚和继续发展。因此这个提案是和DAO治理严重有机相关的
在通证增发被关闭之后,在joicebox上之前没有提取的token仍旧可以被提取。
意外烧毁代币情况,我个人观点是,每个人应该对自己的投资和操作负责。在加密数字货币世界,每天有很多误操作导致BTC,ETH或者其他代币被烧毁,又有谁来补偿他们呢?
但是在DAO,我们依旧有机会通过提出提案和投票的过程来决定,是否补偿和如何补偿这些意外操作导致的损失。比如可以从未来充裕的金库里拨款补偿。
综上所述,关闭通证增发并没有您所夸大的不良影响。反而是增强了社区的凝聚力,从而有效地推动社区的治理进一步落实。

My answer:
The closure of additional token issuance is a very important proposal. Because the Justice Token is the medal obtained by the donor through donation, and it is the value generated by the donation behavior of the donor.
If this value cannot be guaranteed, it will definitely affect the cohesion and continued development of the DAO consensus. Therefore, this proposal is seriously and organically related to DAO governance.
After the token issuance is closed, the tokens that have not been withdrawn on the joybox can still be withdrawn.
In the case of accidental burning of tokens, my personal opinion is that everyone should be responsible for their own investments and operations. In the world of encrypted digital currency, there are many misoperations that cause BTC, ETH or other tokens to be burned every day, who will compensate them?
But in the DAO, we still have the opportunity to decide whether and how to compensate for the losses caused by these unexpected operations through the process of proposal and voting. For example, compensation can be allocated from the future abundant treasury.
To sum up, closing the token issuance does not have the negative effect that you exaggerate. Instead, it enhances the cohesion of the community, thereby effectively promoting the further implementation of community governance.

4 Likes

People who oppose BZ as a representative of the Chinese community are really funny. If you don’t agree, you can vote against the DAO proposal and vote on it immediately. The vote shows the opinion of the community

4 Likes

Silke should learn what Dao is

Silke should learn what Dao is

1 Like

Silke should learn what Dao is

Silke should learn what Dao is

1 Like