AssangeDAO Community Foundation Governance Rules v1.0

AssangeDAO Community Foundation Governance Rules v1.0

The AssangeDAO Community Foundation (The Foundation) is a community organization
supported by donations from Justice token holders. The original goal is to raise funds in order
to promote certain projects that are beneficial to the development of the AssangeDAO
community because AssangeDAO has no funds in the treasury. Foundation funds support
selected AssangeDAO’s marketing and promotional events, community projects, and
distribute rewards to main community contributors. Foundation funds also support the
development of an economic model to make sure the Foundation can be sustained for a long
time. We also hope the Foundation can invest in certain projects and make good returns,
increasing the impact of the Foundation.
Initially, the Foundation was setup by @Dong, @dandelion@alex@Daniel@Andrew
and others, with a total of 42 initial donors. The Foundation does not represent the official
AssangeDAO; it does not represent the entire AssangeDAO community; it only represents the
donors of the Foundation. The future development of the Foundation is determined by the
donors’ votes according to Foundation’s governance rules.

This is the official version of the governance rules of the Assange Foundation. The daily operation of the foundation is strictly in accordance with the governance rules of the foundation. All community members are welcome to supervise.

And so the splintering of AssangeDAO continues. Just a few hours ago, a 3-day Airdrop was launched via the official AssangeDAO Twitter account, under the official AssangeDAO banner, organized unofficially outside the AssangeDAO approval process by a handful of AssangeDAO Discord members. Now comes a Foundation with its own governance rules that does not represent the official AssangeDAO, does not represent the entire AssangeDAO community, but represents only its own donors. Yet it is called The AssangeDAO Community Foundation. This trend spells doom for AssangeDAO as a singular cohesive unit.

1 Like

Agree with @TomStairtsen. I think this idea doesn’t make sense, specially call it DAO foundation, if members want to donate money great but try to have this set as a DAO foundation doesn’t make sense. It just create more division and an attempt to try to give more power of decision to a few member that are donating a fee more bucks. We need to spend energy in the DAO as unique and not having a “DAO foundation” because a few members feel entitled because donated a few tokens…We need the DAO to function well before anything else (I know its being long and hard job)… and again Chinese members trying to split the DAO and trying to push their ideas and agenda

I don’t agree that this have any official connection with the DAO, if people want to donate great and super welcome but settings any rules because of that I think it’s wrong

Don’t just call out the Chinese investors, they are merely being reactionary, they actually wanted a functioning DAO, instead what we have is retards like Ewillhelpyou, who is also splintering the community by banning these members who disagree with him, alleging that people who disagree with him are intelligence community assets, and apparently not even abiding by community rule making process of the DAO.

Julian’s wife Stella tweeted optimistically today, “The DAO is here to stay.” That’s hopeful, but I wonder how closely she’s been following developments here such as the above.

1 Like

With the Airdrop there was no AIP and no community vote. Don’t understand how it got up when the process for proposals was not followed according to the rules. There needs to be more consistency with the rules. Projects should be time framed for the second half of this year and/or until everything is running smoothly and by the book. The airdrop thing was rushed through.

With this Foundation - the community hasn’t voted for it. And again the proposal hasn’t gone though the right steps for endorsement.

What is the proper proposal process please?

1 Like

What is the correct procedure that will see no harm to Julian re proposals. This still has not been finalised by the looks of it.

【Google Translate】 @TomStairtsen @PMA
I can’t believe why you see the existence of the foundation as a division of the project, is it right that everything else should be at rest because there are no rules for DAO governance, no treasury. This is a DAO organization that should allow some people to form groups to do what they think is right. Any decision that ultimately represents the will of the DAO should be decided by a snapshot vote, and no one is more in favor of this than me.

AssangeDao is no longer a cohesive organization after a few people alone decided to put all the donations to auction, and the treasury was empty.

The community didn’t have any money to push anything, and then some people donated money to set up an organization to facilitate things in the community that would benefit the development of the project. So far, the foundation has supported several spontaneous marketing activities by community members and airdrop activities. Most of the initiators of these activities are non-donors of the foundation. Any subsequent donor can initiate a proposal on behalf of any member of the community to request funding for what they think is right.

The reason for the release of this governance rule is to avoid the collapse of the only positive energy I have seen in this project because of the stagnation of the project and the fall of the currency price. So what do you think this organization should be called, the AssangeDAO Foundation, the AssangeDAO Community Foundation, the AssangeDAO Chinese Community Foundation or the Justice Foundation, it’s just a name. The only consideration in choosing the current name is the hope that the foundation will have the support of the entire community.

Your biggest misunderstanding is that all Chinese members are trying to gain rights. You can interview any of the donors on the foundation’s giving list and see if they take pleasure in the fact that the governance rules give them the right to vote. Or do they think that the formulation of governance rules is only to avoid the operation of the foundation from being controlled by personal factors, and at the same time to ensure that any team in the community can obtain the support of the foundation.

As for why you think you should spend energy promoting the foundation instead of contributing to the DAO. In fact, the current situation is that most of the donors have lost faith and motivation in the project. Most of the work of the foundation’s governance rules is done by myself. My only purpose is to hope that the foundation can maintain normal operation. The governance rules are now complete, and I have also ended all work with the foundation and have no role in the foundation, which can be confirmed to any donor.I have replied to the PMA thing in discord.

Finally, I would like to say that some people complain that why the affairs of the community are not determined by the governance rules of DAO, and at the same time they refuse to establish complete governance rules, they are afraid that the Chinese who have the majority of voting rights will take the project to the unknowable status. Complaining can’t solve any problems. I personally will try to promote the formulation of DAO governance rules in the next time. I hope you don’t think, look, the Chinese are coming to control DAO. My only appeal is to hope DAO can follow the rules. Keep running.

1 Like

Yes and do what is in the best interest of Assange*. Its all about balance. But the Proposal system has to be the next step don’t you think - the way that is going to work has to be fixed/finalised.

  • That would include participants not making unsubstantiated claims (here and elsewhere) that appear to be politically driven, come across as grifting and self promoting. Disgusted by so much online dramatics which have inserted itself and attached itself to the Assange name. (just to be clear this is not a dig at you).

@rave grifting is a serious charge. I realize you wrote that actions here and elsewhere “come across” as grifting. But if you know of anyone using AssangeDAO to obtain money falsely through swindles or frauds, etc., please name names and provide evidence. Insinuations are not helpful.


1 Like

Leave it as it was written, thanks. Every decision here must be for Assange’s best interest. No other function, other than that.

Zian this is the TEMPLATE. This TEMPLATE link should be added to the Wiki FAQ for those who fix up this website, so that proposers can use it.

Also there are these “rules” and not sure this has all been sorted out yet. I think this should be considered in light of what you are proposing (re a separate Foundation) and who should representatives and authors be. The Representatives (Proposers) - Draft of Governance Framework 002.1(DGF 002.1)

Also relevant and a loose end. Where are Zylo/Andrew - are these persons still around? Firming all of this up as proposals?

【Google translate】Thanks for your attention, I’m not sure I understood what you mean, the information that Google translate gave me was a little confusing. If you have specific questions about the Foundation, you can ask me directly, and I can give you corresponding explanations.

The foundation currently has its own proposal method, because we need to ensure that each donor has the ability to propose smoothly. Foundation governance will be updated according to the results of subsequent proposals from other donors.

If the foundation needs to have an official contact with AssangeDAO one day in the future, the first thing to do is to use AssangeDAO’s official proposal process, and then get a Snapshot vote for confirmation, which is legal.

If it’s a discussion of AssangeDAO’s governance rules and proposal process, it seems like it should be in another appropriate thread.

Zian - don’t give up. Some questions for your group to think about.

  1. Why are some of the Chinese members not able to work on the governance work here and put up proposals? You’ve built this - why leave? What are your issues? Has anybody tried to stop your participation? Ignored you? Answer is to get more people into some positions here.

  2. I don’t see how this entity could ever use the name of Assange if it is separate as that name would require approval by his family?? I would think you would have to ask Assange/Gabriel for usage of the family name, if you guys decided to leave.

  3. What do you believe would happen to the AssangeDAO - if the Spanish, French, Germans, Australians, Lebanese - etc - all decided to splinter off into national groups? That would be unthinkable. Its better having an international presence intact. The more diversity the stronger the ideas. But a strong whole team.

Just stay with the AssangeDAO - it’s all about an international community. Yes it does seem to have many loose ends, admittedly at the moment - but by year end - hope that is turned around. If it is a success it would be because the Chinese community doesn’t leave, IMO. So delay this decision and help out here, if you can, especially if you have the skills and committed to the funding and establishment.

Thank you for your recognition, I have no thoughts of leaving AssangeDAO for the time being. The above means that after the release of the foundation’s governance rules, I no longer play a specific role in the foundation, but only as an ordinary donor. This is because the Foundation can function normally because of the rules, and my goal has been achieved.

My only next job is to try to push AssangeDao’s governance rules, I know it’s hard, it needs to balance a lot of different opinions, and I need a lot of time to think about what steps to take to get results.

In addition, I especially appreciate your recognition of Chinese token holders, who are indeed the largest donation group and token holder regardless of what happened in the past few months. Because the project did not progress very well, indeed a lot of people have left, including those who are very capable.

In my opinion, the conflicts that have arisen in the past period of time have more to do with conflicts in worldviews. I have no intention of judging who is right and who is wrong, but Chinese token holders have many advantages, such as passion and willingness to contribute. If there are clear governance rules, I believe the community can settle down in the shortest time.

1 Like

Yes I agree on that.

Im not sure about the impact on the wider AssangeDAO though. If your energy is diverted elsewhere? Have you assessed the impact? My only focus really is Assange’s reputation and freedom.

Do you have a position in the AssangeDAO to do this?

I love Chinese people!. My most long term personal friend is from childhood!!!

So this was really an announcement, you have decided to do your own thing? I thought you were asking for a proposal to run a sub-group. But it seems you have already decided to go your own way…

@rave Thank you my friend. I think specific plans should be dedicated to the right post at the right time, and I still need time to explore what is best for us. Here’s a few thoughts I’ve posted on discord.

Because the “core team” of the DAO has repeatedly ignored the voices in the chinese community, and has refused to be held to public accountability for their actions, and will instead just ban anyone who points out the problems they have made. There are numerous chinese individuals who provided ETH to the DAO, and actually did not get any JUSTICE tokens, because nobody was listening or paying attention to what they were doing, and closed the issuance of tokens BEFORE they resolved that technical problem which has been brought to their attention.

It’s a no brainer that there has to be a vote on those matters at the AssangeDAO.

But what does the Chinese Foundation intend to do???