San Shi Wu was a moderator - it was their job to keep Discord civil. Breaking the rules by using expletives (often aimed at Julian and Gabriel) and using violent threats towards others - its going to attract a mod’s attention. Ive been shocked by some of the stuff I read there.
Moderating online spaces is a tough gig—people hide behind their anonymity to say dreadful things they’d never dare in person, and frustration (even justifiable frustration) can spiral into something uglier.
It’s reasonable to expect adults to self-regulate and not lean into mob-like antics or expletive-laden tirades, especially after warnings.
The line between venting and veering into potential criminality—like inciting harassment of Stella Assange and her two young children in London by a DAO mob —can get blurry fast, and it’s on individuals to recognize when they’re crossing it, not just on moderators to play whack-a-mole with bad actors.
Some extremely radical individuals did need to be removed, but others who weren’t that extreme were also kicked out too easily.
Moreover, they have never made any real effort to push forward community governance. I’ve seen you repeatedly urging core members to take action and move the community forward, but they never do. Instead, they hide in the shadows, staying silent. Then, the moment the community makes progress, they suddenly appear,attempting to take credit
I’ll say again, I’m humbled by the nomination and proud of what AssangeDAO has accomplished together. Its amazing we secured Julian’s freedom through collective action in a diversified way!
The $justice token stands as a testament to why tokenization must remain free from state regulation, setting us apart from the broader ecosystem of memes and gambling due to our philanthropic nature. Despite debates, particularly around liquidating treasury funds during Julian’s legal battle, I believe our focus on his freedom was the right one, even if it’s drawn heat for candidates like myself and @San_Shi_Wu .
On a revised Vision statement, with Julian free, questions exist about our purpose. I’d advocate maintaining our philanthropic backbone, protecting our holdings to ensure continued advocacy for free speech. We must elevate historical assets like the ‘Clock’ artwork and the art auction that inspired us, while raising awareness of our achievements as a DAO. Monetizing this history and building revenue streams can support longevity, fund additional free speech causes, and attract new donors and members. AssangeDAO can remain a model for collective action, organizing for future battles in the fight for free speech.
Regarding treasury management, I favor a conservative approach given the crypto cycle’s risks. I wouldn’t push for major moves from ETH to stables or other assets now considering volatility but would focus on our path forward, creating a plan to diversify some portion of assets as the environment becomes more bullish. The goal would be to ensure we sustain our mission through the inevitable volatility.
On risks in proposals, the largest threat I see is still calls to liquidate the treasury—pushed by a vocal minority since formation to throw our ETH into the $justice token as exit liquidity. I view this as shortsighted and will vehemently oppose any proposal sacrificing our long-term vision for short-term gains.
I’m thankful for this opportunity and committed to building on our success while staying true to our founding principles.
If you are referring to the price fluctuation of ETH against USD in the treasury, I tried to analyze it in the following ways
Premise:
Cryptocurrencies were designed with the idea that they would circulate as money and operate through decentralization to avoid a government monopoly on currency issuance. Successive U.S. governments, not wanting cryptocurrencies to challenge the status of the U.S. dollar, have financialized cryptocurrencies. This was essentially achieved through a series of pushes. Now ETH retains both monetary attributes and also contains financial attributes and utility.
Monetary Properties:
When it is understood as a currency, it is like the Korean Won, the Australian Dollar. The amount of currency standard will not change, 1 ETH = 1 ETH.
So its price fluctuation against USD will not have an effect on itself.
Financial Properties:
The way to avoid volatility in financial products is to switch to fiat currencies, but fiat currencies are also volatile and no asset is truly “price stable”.
The second way is to hedge against current volatility is to invest in value-protecting assets such as gold and US bonds. However, we may need to sell those assets at the right time, as this can only be used for hedging purposes.
The third option is to buy high and sell low on current assets to hedge against volatility.
But the real problem is that no one in the world can predict the future, much less accurately determine at any given time what stage it is at at the time. The financial strategies we do today will hardly stand the test of time at any point in the future.
Also creating an investment strategy for Treasury ETH is likely to distract the DAO and throw it off track. As far as I know no DAO has made an investment strategy to their treasury assets for avoid volatility.
In my opinion avoiding current volatility is inherently risky.
Other factors/utility:
Cryptocurrencies still have a lot of ETH usage scenarios right now, including the future development of this project will involve.
ETH is still more decentralized and secure than any stablecoin.
DAO accepts ETH contributions at juicebox, and ETH accurately reflects the number received by DAO. Retaining ETH avoids potential legal liability.
Many companies, including WikiLeaks, also accept ETH donations, and ETH is still considered an important currency.
Summarize:
Overall I prefer the treasury to keep ETH rather than switching to other assets or stablecoins. Two years ago the bz proposal tried to swap 200 ETH from the treasury for stablecoins at 1300USD. I opposed the proposal at the time and gave part of the same reasoning as above. If the proposal had gone through then, is it possible that people now regret this or demand that someone be held accountable for this action? Especially in the current climate of language accusing the WH of experiencing massive losses by converting ETH to USDT without professional guidance.
I will prioritize whether the consequences of the proposal are detrimental to Julian’s reputation, I will analyze the proposal in detail and make a “presumption of guilt”, and I will communicate with the author of the proposal to make sure that it does not end up in the worst possible way. I will also consider whether it is in line with the current mission of the DAO.
Which wallet do you hold the nfts in? There are only 4 wallets with more than 20 censored tokens. I am one and another is the burn address ive sent 24 tokens to haha
I vouch for lao da, from the liquidation of the treasury proposal when he came out bravely questioned the consequences of the proposal, not afraid of the suppression of rights, rational thinking, civilized speech. He had the presence of mind to judge the nature of the proposal.
Thanks for the comprehensive answers. I think more members/participants should be asking questions - as the GTU - is only temporary (if approved) - but the DAO is looking for more multi-sigs - so it can’t hurt to ask questions, as Gabriel and Silke have suggested.
More questions and more answers before time runs out - this is in everybody’s best interest.
How could the treasury be best protected from the current volatility given that it has markedly dropped in the last few days? How do you approach financial management?
Based on the market performance over the last two years, if the foundation’s remaining funds can be refunded to the community, I would suggest converting the treasury’s part of the ETH into BTC. BTC is clearly more stable, has higher returns, and enjoys stronger consensus compared to ETH. Additionally, as the community governance improves, with the community growing stronger and its consensus solidifying, using part of the ETH to repurchase community tokens ($JUSTICE) will significantly enhance the treasury’s assets and boost the confidence and motivation of token holders and contributors. At the same time, we can further empower the $JUSTICE token.
If you were asked to review a revised Vision statement for the AssangeDAO what elements would you prefer to see prioritised?
Continue to advocate for Assange’s full pardon: This remains a core mission, with Assange’s legal and political status being a key goal for the DAO.
Support free speech and press freedom: Ensure that the DAO’s efforts are aligned with supporting independent journalism, freedom of speech, and the protection of journalists and whistleblowers globally.
How would you detect/flag whether a proposal contained a risk/security/threat assessment?
Require proposal submitters to explicitly outline the potential risks involved and provide clear mitigation strategies.
Establish a dedicated security review team to assess high-risk proposals.
If a proposal involves significant financial management, governance changes, or other high-risk actions, implement a warning system. This could include increasing the voting threshold or extending the discussion period to allow for adequate evaluation by the community.
I don’t think the number of tokens held means anything. It is important to enable the DAO to avoid attacks, infiltration, overturn, and to adhere to its core mission.The DAO was not built to hype the $JUSTICE token, rather, the token serves as a voting weight for contributors to participate in the DAO’s fulfillment of its core mission.
Our core mission does not involve a requirement for members to hold how much tokens and commit to the price of tokens.
Obviously the information he gave was so exaggerated that it couldn’t be verified. If you were a member of DAO, wouldn’t you verify this very exaggerated information?
You need to see that no one is asking about how much his tokens and NFT holdings, just verifying that his own claims are credible.
Thank you!
