Point 1
We need to vote on a new mission and the most suitable words that have a bit of longevity. Then finalise the website.
Point 2
Yes it would be great to receive feedback by the Consensus Unit. At the moment it still includes Stella Morris and Jennifer Robinson too. It has to be updated.
Point 3
I believe Wau Holland would not wish to lose that funding to the German Government - so they do have a decision to make with those funds too. So the DAO should act soon to help them!.
If we play this right (as Harry Halpin who talked to them mentioned) the DAO would need to contact them with an appropriate request - a submission for funding. I guess that would be a formal letter of inquiry containing information about the funding sought, the DAOs budget, mission, alumini, alignment and so on.
But even before that I think GS should touch base with them to stimulate their interest in us and what we have to offer as part of a mutual bargain.
BUT the DAO has to start a fact finding mission quickly to do that.
-
RESEARCH their organisation so that the community understands how it functions (Wau Holland have their own challenges in Germany. They are a non-profit foundation. The DAO needs to understand their unique challenges/obtacles in facilitation of any funding. Is PAK a challenge? Are their tax laws going to knock us out of this opportunity? What are their deadlines?
-
Establish warm communications, simultaneously. The two organisations’ leaders would have to discuss what type of projects they might be interested in funding. Our leaders, in a friendly way, would ask them what they need from us (that’s one part of the research).
Our own obstacles in that regard might be
- the need to set up a legal arm of the DAO in the most suitable location
- the need to be able to show an annual budget
- the need to have more funds in our treasury by having at least one successful project managed efficiently beforehand
[Note: Applicants typically submit proposals detailing their project, budget, goals, and impact. Nonprofits review these for completeness, feasibility, and potential outcomes. From AI research]
Knowledge about the legal challenges should guide us.
If they answer no, we move on.
If yes, then we pursue and work towards what they need from us.
Then decide on the projects they’re interested in and finalise the negotiations.
Point 6
- investigate/prioriitise the projects the DAO could do first with the meagre resources (technical labour/budget allocation) it has.
Point 7 - appoint leaders to replace the GTU. Would be simple to fast track by appointing alumini from the multisigs, consensus unit and the proposers or even past invite past alumini. Or vote on a combination of these.
That’s all I can think of at the moment.
This section is an addition to the above which I wrote this morning (which is mostly likely la la land stuff re Wau Holland. Read on.
OK Today (it’s a public holiday), so Ive decided to do some research the speediest way I know how. Its not 100% bona fide because its AI and AI gets stuff wrong. Its the best I can do and Im not a lawyer.
AI is capable of researching German institutions for their applicable laws. So this is what its coming up with and it is pretty sobering.
Bottom line it will be a difficult pathway - however we know that Gabriel has managed to obtain funds for the Australian Assange Campaign via Wau Holland.
From the information, It looks like we can’t expect funding as a DAO. AI is indicating its never been done and it would be a precedant for Germany to allow it.
So here it is
Some research on Wau Holland and whether a DAO could ask for a financial submission from a German Not For profit
Wau Holland is a grant-making foundation (Stiftungen) based in Germany.
It follows a structured yet flexible process to decide on fund recipients, emphasizing alignment with their statutory purposes, public benefit, and sustainability.
Their decisions are governed by the foundation’s statutes, board oversight, and state supervisory authorities (Stiftungsaufsichtsbehörden), ensuring funds support charitable goals like education, health, or social welfare without private profit.
Potential recipients—typically other non-profits, projects, or individuals—submit formal proposals outlining the project’s goals, budget, timeline and expected impact.
Wau Holland would verify if the applicant is a recognized non-profit (e.g., via the federal Charity Register) and if the project serves public benefit purposes as defined in the German Tax Code (Abgabenordnung, AO §52), such as advancing science, culture, or social equity.
Projects must be non-discriminatory, sustainable and free from self-dealing. Funding is often limited to German-based entities or those with tax reciprocity for foreign applicants.
Grants are approved via formal decisions (Bewilligungsverfahren), documented in board minutes. Recipients may need to provide detailed budgets or usage reports (Mittelverwendungsrechnung).
Post-grant, German supervisory authorities and tax offices monitor compliance through annual activity reports, financial statements, and audits to prevent misuse.
A German foundation (Stiftung) typically cannot provide a grant to a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) while maintaining its tax-privileged status, due to strict requirements under German tax law for recipients to be recognized as serving public-benefit (gemeinnützig) purposes.
DAOs, being blockchain-based entities governed by smart contracts, generally lack the legal personality, statutes and oversight needed to qualify as eligible recipients.
While DAOs could theoretically pursue public-benefit activities (e.g., via smart contracts for transparent aid distribution), they would need to establish a compliant German legal wrapper, such as a gGmbH or e.V., to receive funds—effectively making the grant to a traditional non-profit entity rather than the DAO itself.
Foreign DAOs face even stricter scrutiny, as German authorities do not automatically recognize non-EU entities without equivalent tax-exempt status and verifiable altruism.
Non-compliance risks revoking the foundation’s tax privileges, audits, or repayment demands.
In rare cases, if a DAO’s activities demonstrably serve a foundation’s statutory purpose and funds are earmarked for qualifying uses (e.g., via equivalent foreign non-profit verification), limited support might be feasible, but this requires case-by-case tax authority approval and robust documentation to avoid self-dealing or misuse.
There is no precedent for DAO grants from a German Foundation even if they are set up as a . gGmbH or eV as of October 2025.
- A gGmbH (gemeinnützige Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung) is a German non-profit limited liability company designed to pursue public-benefit (gemeinnützig) purposes as defined in the German Fiscal Code (§§52–55 AO)
- An e.V. (eingetragener Verein) is a German registered association, a common legal form for non-profit organizations in Germany. It is established under the German Civil Code (BGB §§21–79) and is designed for groups pursuing a common, typically non-commercial purpose, such as cultural, social, educational, or charitable activities.
A German e.V. can serve as a legal wrapper by representing the DAO’s community, with members reflecting DAO token holders or contributors. The DAO’s governance (e.g., smart contracts) can be mirrored in the e.V.’s statutes, though full decentralization may be limited by the need for a formal board (Vorstand) and member meetings.
A German gGmbH is a non-profit version of a GmbH, combining corporate flexibility with tax-privileged status for public-benefit purposes under the GmbH Act and §§52–55 AO.
DAOs are not explicitly addressed in German non-profit law, and no public records confirm a gGmbH explicitly wrapping a DAO for grant purposes. The decentralized nature of DAOs, especially with token-based incentives, often raises concerns about profit distribution, which could jeopardize gemeinnützig status.
Could a foreign not for profit work?
A foreign not-for-profit organization seeking a grant from a German tax-privileged foundation (gemeinnützige Stiftung) must navigate strict legal and tax requirements under German law, particularly the German Fiscal Code (§§52–55 AO), to ensure compliance with the foundation’s public-benefit (gemeinnützig) obligations. While it is possible for foreign non-profits to receive grants, the process involves demonstrating equivalence to German non-profit status, aligning with the foundation’s mission, and meeting rigorous documentation standards.
Steps to be taken:
Public-Benefit Purpose: The foreign not-for-profit must pursue objectives that align with Germany’s definition of gemeinnützig purposes (§§52–54 AO), such as promoting education, science, health, culture, or social welfare. The activities must benefit the public and not serve private interests or profit distribution.
Equivalence to German Non-Profit Status: The organization must demonstrate that it is recognized as a non-profit in its home country with a legal form and purpose equivalent to a German gemeinnützige organization (e.g., a registered association [e.V.], non-profit GmbH [gGmbH], or foundation). This includes having statutes that prohibit profit distribution to members or shareholders.
Tax Authority Approval: Since 2021 reforms, foreign non-profits must either be subject to limited tax liability in Germany or provide evidence of equivalent tax-privileged status in their jurisdiction. This often requires a certificate from the foreign tax authority or a legal opinion confirming non-profit status.
The foreign not-for-profit’s project or activities must match the German foundation’s statutory purpose. Most foundations publish their funding priorities on their websites or through the Association of German Foundations.
A foreign not-for-profit can seek grants from a German foundation by proving equivalence to a German gemeinnützig entity, aligning its project with the foundation’s mission, and meeting strict documentation and reporting requirements. While feasible, the process is complex due to enhanced accountability rules and tax oversight. Consulting resources from the Association of German Foundations and engaging professional advisors are critical for success
So this AI research has come up with 3 potential options. Two of them haven’t been tried - that is There is no precedent for DAO grants from a German Foundation even if they are set up as a . gGmbH or eV as of October 2025.
Only Gabriel’s model in setting up a foreign incorporated based in Australia (Assange International Inc) has worked. Maybe a similar avenue is the only avenue this DAO could take. But then how would an Australian Inc - set up as a not for profit - actually transfer funds to a DAO under Australian tax law? And would there still be German oversight, if it tried to do that? That’s another question and it is even more complex.
According to AI - to answer the Australia taxation and legal environment
A not-for-profit incorporated company (such as a company limited by guarantee registered with ASIC) in Australia can submit funds to a DAO, provided the transfer aligns with its charitable or not-for-profit purposes, governance rules, and applicable regulations. This could take the form of a donation (e.g., transferring cryptocurrency or fiat converted to crypto) or an investment in a DAO’s treasury, as long as it furthers the organization’s objectives and prudent financial management practices are followed.
In practice, Australian not-for-profits should:
-
Obtain board approval and document the decision to demonstrate it advances their purposes.
-
Consult tax and legal advisors for CGT, reporting, and anti-money laundering compliance.
-
Consider risks like crypto volatility and DAO governance uncertainties.
-
Report the transaction in ACNC annual statements and ASIC filings if applicable.
While proposals exist to recognize DAOs as legal entities (e.g., via new corporate structures), no such framework is in place as of October 2025, so transfers remain feasible but require caution.
Could individuals requestt a refund fron a german not for profit (again this answer is from AI -so its not conclusive legal advice.
Individual donors to a German not-for-profit cannot automatically expect a refund of cryptocurrency donations, even if unspent funds exist, unless the organization’s statutes, a specific donation agreement, or German law (e.g., failure of a designated purpose or misrepresentation) provides grounds for a claim.
Im going to put another link in here about DSE legal structures which maybe another vaild option - DAO 3.0: Ultimate Legal Structuring for DAOs in 2025 and Beyond | Aurum
