Initial questions for snapshot voting

Here are the initial questions I propose for snapshot voting based off the initial governance blog post and the follow-up community call.

For now I’ve focused on the main questions of the core mission, the consensus unit and communication channels. Other important questions we need to evaluate are the voting system (which absolutely must be discussed and decided upon), and the multisig. For now lets focus on ensuring these initial questions are good quality so we can begin the initial round of voting.

Core Mission

Should the DAO only act to support the legal struggle of Assange or pursue other tactics to liberate Assange?

  • Legal only
  • Other avenues

Should the DAO also concern itself with other prisoners of conscience?

  • Expand mission to justice including Assange
  • Remain focused only on Assange

How much should the DAO remain focused on Assange?

  • Strong
  • Weak

Should the DAO rebrand to JusticeDAO?

  • Yes
  • No

Consensus Unit

What should the consensus unit be called?

  • Assange family
  • Consensus unit
  • Advisory council

What should be the role of the Assange family in the DAO?

  • Normal participants
  • Extended status / limited veto
  • Absolute veto

(In the event of #2 above, there will be another series of votes.
If #3 is voted on, then nothing changes about the current governance structure.)

Should the consensus unit include a quorum of non-family community members to avoid conflicts of interest?

  • Require consensus from a quorum
  • Leave the members of the consensus unit intact

(Method of selection for community members will have to be decided upon later.)

Should the DAO establish a direct line of communication with Assange through his lawyers given its substantial interest in his case?

  • Important requirement
  • Not necessary

Should the DAO request formal reports on the use of donated funds by the Wau Holland foundation?

  • Yes
  • No

Community Moderation

Should moderators be required to apply a system of time-outs, and warnings before being allowed to explicitly ban people?

  • Yes
  • No

Should the DAO adopt a code of conduct to evenly moderate speech in official channels?

  • Yes
  • No

Should all bans be removed upon adopting a code of conduct?

  • Yes
  • No

Should bans be limited in time?

  • Yes
  • No

Amir,Thanks for your hard work,It is recommended to include the following three questions to speed up the entire project process:

Should we initiate the issuance for the proposal to destroy the token contract ‘s additional permissions ?:

  • Yes
  • No

Which members have the power to initiate proposals on Sanpshot?

  • Consensus unit
  • Token Holders
  • Both all

Should there be a re-election, listing of all community day-to-day staff and volunteers, and consideration of an ongoing iterative mechanism?

  • Yes
  • No

Thanks for your work. I think the questions you listed are very important and we should start with these initial questions. Start snapshot voting as soon as possible to start our DAO. Let’s make it.

Yes, I agree with BZ. The project team needs to adapt to the speed of Chinese people, even to do, so as soon as possible to do things well, do perfect. At the same time, the current project team needs to understand that it is important to get the wider community to work and influence as quickly as possible to save Assange. Finally, I would like to express my strong approval of Amirla


Abandoning additional issuance is the most concerned issue at present, otherwise no one would dare to buy more $justice

1 Like

There is no option for “no consensus unit”, this is my biggest point of contention, that the owners have complete control of the DAO, even able to abolish the “consensus unit”. Since many people at present have issues with the current management, and would like to oust individuals who previously engaged in misconduct, from controlling the DAO any further.

I am happy that there have been apologies, but you have never mentioned whom was responsible, and the only way to hold people accountable, is to impeach them for abuse of power. If there is a consensus unit, they are immune from the impeachment for abuse of power, and are prone to feel free to abuse power in the future.

I personally feel the best solution for this problem, is to use whatever remains in the treasury, to perform an outside hire of a civil rights attorney, which would perform the role of executive director. This would prevent the appearances of conflicts of interest, financial impropriety, and allow the pursuit of the Assange defense in the courts, in addition to whatever other people the DAO could represent.

Should the DAO only act to support the legal struggle of Assange or pursue other tactics to liberate Assange?

  • Legal only
  • Other avenues

What other avenues are there to free Assange? The Anglo-American system is built upon the independence of the judiciary, and the only people who are going to free Assange right now are the lawyers, the judge, the jury. In theory Assange can get a pardon from President Biden, but Biden’s administration has confirmed their intent to prosecute Assange, as he is close to the national security apparatus.

1 Like

Thanks for your work!


Very good proposal, thank you for your hard work, we will be better and better


No additional issuance is the most important issue, and it is recommended to vote first.

@endomorphosis see this

So what should the question be?

Should JUSTICE supply be capped?

  • JUSTICE supply is fixed forever
  • Refund people who accidentally burned their tokens

I think the number of people who need a refund are relatively small compared to overall supply so it doesn’t feel like an immediately important question.

bz, we are going to do this but step by step first. If we open up snapshot right away before we have any governance organized, then it will be a race to the bottom. Right now we’re trying to get everyone focused to go forwards.

I’ve made an AIP for the initial round of governance voting:

  • People need to pay for their mistakes
1 Like


see The question of whether the justice can be increased through the contract needs to be placed in the first proposal - #2 by narodnik

最好的办法绝不是保留增发,而是取消增发。 至于不小心燃烧的人,可以提交证明申请社区募捐补偿。 我相信这区的力量。
如果保留增发,JUSTIC的价格会趴在地板上;我们也不可能创建一个强大的社区;什么都很难做成。 仅仅为了30ETH,牺牲整个社区和17000ETH人的利益么?

The best way is by no means to keep the additional issuance, but to cancel the additional issuance. As for those who accidentally burn, they can submit a certificate to apply for community fundraising compensation. I believe in the power of this district.
If the additional issuance is reserved, the price of JUSTIC will be on the floor; we cannot create a strong community; it is difficult to achieve anything. Just for 30ETH, sacrificing the interests of the entire community and 17000ETH people?

1 Like