Auction won! What's next for AssangeDAO?

AssangeDAO successfully collected muratpak x Julian Assange “Clock” NFT, so the primary North Star of the DAO was accomplished.
The DAO now is the owner of the NFT, and with a big community with different ideas and values we should start planning ahead.
I think scheduling a TownHall is too soon, since a lot of ideas need to be hashed out, so why not start here.

What should AssangeDAO focus on now?


We need to fractionalise the NFT for $JUSTICE holders.


I would sell the NFT for liquidity, allow people to exit, and then pivot the DAO to perform a criminal justice reform organization.


I calls for someone to set up a SueStellaMorrisDAO. I will double my donation to this new DAO. thank you.

I don’t know why you want to sue Stella Morris, but if you describe what you want for relief, and why you’re entitled for relief, i will give you my legal advice.

I think one of the first points would be security and trust…

I’m sure the moment this project started, we, the fund, our ideas, actions are somehow ‘on the radar’ and that not only people bought the priviledge to participate in this project, but also intelligence, that wants to be one step in front of us and try to find ways how to boycott our efforts (apart of trolls or folks that still believe that there’s financial profit behind this project). In other words we should be aware that what we plan, they’d know.

After so many years I saw many things going wrong. We all saw it in front of our eyes and that’s why I write these thoughts first and hope that all our further steps will be carefully considered by the team. It’s not just about the security of the donations, but also our future work \ ideas etc.

That’s why I think that this is the very first thing that the DOA’s focus should be.

Thank you for reading. :raised_hands:t2::star2::sparkles:


Assangedao is now the biggest DAO in the world. We could and should continue to become the biggest Dao in the world and we therefore can become the entry of WEB3.0 and NFT, ongoing raising money and buyback tokens through online marketing fees and cooperation.

It is simple steps:
1\ Maintain the DAO. The team should listen to community members. Currently, more than half discussion disagree the maximum bid while the team still put all the money in the NFT. Since, the money has gone, the governance of JUSTIC token should transferred to the COMMUNITY to someones good at listening and maintaining the DAO. We should have online community mods with different LANGUAGES and IDEAS since we are a global DAO.

2\We should cooperate with NFTS\GAMEFIS\DEFIS and other web 3.0 applications. Since we are the largest DAO we have the bargain power. Say, we can cooperate with artists like Pak and create NFTs with some revenue goes to the Assange fund ,some revenue use to buyback tokens or just Airdrop some NFT to token holders. We could do this for any web3.0 applilcations, use our advantages as the biggest DAO and use the marketing fees as the ongoing fund raising and revenue.


IMO i think Pak drop is WAVE#1 and we need to keep the momentum going on social media and mainstream media, to really ignite some fire and keep the spotlight on Assange case. Because that’s the problem with this case, if it’s news, Assange is “protected”, but once it stop being “news worthy”, they advance on Julian, it’s like we are playing squid games here…

I would like to see never ending WAVES of awareness actions organized by the DAO, some other big artists showed interest in helping AssangeDAO, like Vhils.

We have the momentum, let’s not waste it, we need to keep pushing forward.


In order to avoid any future discrepancies within the DAO regarding its future. We should set up a voting system as soon as possible in order to have the most decentralized governance possible.


Well. I have outlined my case a few times in this forum. I believe the due process is not followed in a DAO. what happenned is equal to embazzlement of public money.

I want to emphasise that I would love Julian has all the money raised. But not in this way. for me principle matters.

this will not be a simple legal issue (may have case under torts, i don;t know). And Stella herself is a renowned lawyer. She should know the legal implications very well.

Also some core team member/discord mod tried to confine the widespread concerns to certain ethnic group. This is grossly racism-coloured; a contributor is a contributor, regardless race, skin colour, age, sex… none of these factors is relevant to issues surfaced.

but we have to start somewhere. not just fight for the man’s freedom but also princinples he stands for.

Another important thing would be, to create cathegories in order to keep the forum structure more tidy, otherwise a huge amount of different topics will flood the main page of the forum. I guess we could copy the structure from discord if you agree with that. :blush:


The multisig is currently only an interim body that wants to transition to full community owned project once we have put in place the proper democratic processes and setup the project. We have no intention of just quitting now from the project. We are committed to transitioning the project to be a community one.


Well. I have outlined my case a few times in this forum. I believe the due process is not followed in a DAO. what happenned is equal to embazzlement of public money.

I can assure you that embezzlement was not what happened, because the ETH that was contributed all went to the source that it was announced, and Stella Morris did not have ownership of the wallet to which she could embezzle the money, even if she is the beneficiary she didn’t owe any duty to anyone that she had not formed a contract with.

Also some core team member/discord mod tried to confine the widespread concerns to certain ethnic group. This is grossly racism-coloured; a contributor is a contributor, regardless race, skin colour, age, sex… none of these factors is relevant to issues surfaced.

I do not know what you’re talking about, but in most cases you would have to sue the individual who discriminated against persons in the provision of public accommodations or services, and Stella is obviously not that person and doesn’t have control over AssangeDao discord anyways.


Well. the legal analysis of the contract, even whether a contract exists, is probably very complex. A tort of fraud may be there. The bid was clearly a wash trade considering the unnecessary max bid and a clear intention to drain all the funds. Whether she owes a duty of care is probably debatable as she de facto control the decision making of the fate of other people’s money.

However, I have no ill will towards her as an individual. My point was just I think it was unfair and it was done with no respect and care to people who care (at least benefit if not care) for their cause.

stella morris was not in charge of any decision or decision making process, nor fiscally responsible for funds, nor is she a beneficiary of funds.

In other words, youre trying to sue a wholly unrelated person.

Also, stella is really nice :slight_smile: , why in the world would you want to sue her? The DAOs stated objective was to raise funds for Assange’s legal defense by virtue of bidding on the NFT. It accomplished that goal.
His enemies have limitless resources. This was never an investment scheme, nor was it billed as one. It was quite forthright from the start.
Also, the unique collateral in publicity that this DAO has can be thought of as a fair trade for those funds on some level. We can capitalize on public momentum and continue to create change, drawing investors and opportunities both.


First of all, I probably did not make myself clear and I apologise for that. My intention was not sue anyone per se. If the objective is to get some funds back for continuing operation of the DAO, taking legal action is one of the rational options. Not the only one and not he best one, but it should not be excluded without due consideration by the community. It is not against any individual per se.

Secondly I am really glad to know that Stella was not invovled in the aweful decision. The main reason I had trust in this DAO was her endorsement though. On this note, you seems to be one of the elite insiders, I would really appreciate you can be honest and shed some light on who is " Assange family" that Ser Shipton mentioned and Lord narodnik referred to in their statements on this forum.

Thirdly on profit motives. I personal donated on without consideration of profit or return of captial. But I am not a purist. I recognise and appreciate people who donate even with a strong inclination to make profit. Whatever their purposes, not our concern. Our concern is to do the right thing the right way. I am not gonna start a debate on this. There are different camps with unreconciliable differencs on fundamental values, which is totally fine to me. All we need to do is not to discriminate on that ground.

Finally on transparency. I was in Constitution DAO, Ross DAO and this one. And I was early donor in each one of them. I have to say Constitution DAO held the highest standard on transparency and this DAO was bottomless until narodnick’s statement. Please do not employ that “secrecy” excuse states used to prosecute Assange. That is never right and especially wrong in this DAO.

I rest my case and will not post any going forward. I will only be an observer of the history. And Assange has lost all meaning to me up to now. Bye Assange, my hero onece.

I think it is easiest to sum up as, this DAO was not billed as an investment opportunity, but rather as a way to raise funds to bid on an nft for the express purpose of those fund going to aid Assange’s legal fight.
It is a fight that matters to all of us, and the outcome of which will bind each of our respective futures for better or worse. It was in everyone’s best interests that the full sum be bid, both for ethical obligations to donors (ie if funds were retained, whose portion would then not fund assange? This was just one of the ethical dilemnas in that scenario.)
In the end, max-bid was the most principled decision with regards to the stated intent and purpose of the DAO.

And I’m not an elite anything. I just humbly helped make the project happen, and argued in favor of the max bid.
I felt it would have been impossible to reconcile with donors whose express contribution was meant for Assange’s fund, to have their assets placed elsewhere. So even if it meant that liquidity took an initial hit, our DAO retained the integrity needed moving forward to raise more funds and interest.
Objectively, this helps our long term investment strategy as well just by virtue of the public clout it offers us. We should not turn our noses up to the idea that connections matter and that our integrity will determine our success as much as our collective ambition and engagement.

Ps. Whatever your differences with the DAO, it is hardly a reflection on Julian. Casting aspersions by degree is cheap, we must be better than that as people. :slight_smile:


This has, without a doubt, been a historic milestone for DAOs. While we were successful in this bid, there are improvements that could be made to the “raise Ether, create community, bid on X” play that may be worth putting time and resources towards.

Raising Ether:
Since raising Ether happens on a public blockchain using a protocol like Juicebox, there is the problem of anyone being able to know exactly how much Ether the DAO has raised at any given time. This information can’t and shouldn’t be secret forever, but obfuscating until after the auction may be worth considering. An idea for this is to research and develop smart contract solutions for Ether-raising obfuscation for ourselves and for future DAOs. This could build on existing zk-proof architecture, or it could use some other method like many addresses, though that comes with a scalability problem on layer one Ethereum.

Create Community:
At the moment, Discord is the defacto DAO standard for communications, which comes with several inherent risks. Centralization means that if communities act in away that doesn’t align with Discord’s self interest, they are well within their rights to censor the community and leave the members scattered around other platforms like Twitter. Discord also collects user data and is not end-to-end encrypted, leading to doxxing issues with nation-state actors if the community engages in, say, raising funds to stand up for people like Julian Assange. Perfect anonymity isn’t feasible for the average person, however, more decentralized and privacy centric platforms and technologies should be considered and/or experimented with.

We have a unique opportunity, as a DAO that successfully coordinated and amassed historical amounts of Ether for our cause, to help lay out a framework for other DAOs to do similar things. We need better methods to temporarily obfuscate the amount of Ether held, we need scalability solutions, and we need robust, privacy centric communication channels to coordinate without relying on traditional, centralized infrastructure.

1 Like

DarkFi has a prototype anonymous DAO in the works, and a design for an anonymous wikileaks. Also we’ve made a p2p chat system. I’m waiting for AssangeDAO to be fully setup before proposing these.




from a project that censors the ability of investors to propose governance proposals, and censors its critics on discord.

Also we’ve made a p2p chat system.

Why reinvent the wheel?