Of course neither Mr. Assange nor the Consensus Unit should ever be “accountable” for token price . Price is only the symptom. The real frustration people had was never about numbers on a chart, but about the DAO itself being paralyzed.
Let’s be clear:Holders had no real governance power. All assets were liquidated without a proper community vote. The remaining funds with the WHS Foundation have not returned to the DAO, Mr. Assange himself has never acknowledged the role the DAO has played in supporting his fight for freedom…
That’s why people lashed out. Price was just the surface. The real anger came from disempowerment, broken process，lack of acknowledgment,and no fair treatment.It seems you will never truly understand ,or perhaps you do understand perfectly well, but simply prefer to play ignorant.
But that chapter is over. We are at a new beginning. Gabriel and a few true believers in the community are actively changing this state of affairs , rebuilding governance, restoring trust, and giving the DAO back its rightful strength.
If you want to talk accountability, it’s not about price charts. It’s about whether we have the courage to fix what was broken and build something meaningful.
As per a recent vote - the priority project now is to investigate the potential for Wau Holland funding. We were given advice by Harry Halpin about how to proceed with that. He talked to them and they seem to be open to that idea. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the DAO could obtain funding to implement some of the latest projects?
There were excellent AIPs and ideas in 2022 - there were good people around who could never understand why they were not implemented.
Original Proposers left the DAO likely as a result of the defunding of the entire treasury. I did a bit of research lately and discovered that even Amir had submitted his resignation as a multi sig on 4th April 2022. Two other multisigs plus E resigned in Feb 2022. The exit of those proposers and multi sig members destabilised and hindered this DAO.
E came back to the DAO ostensibly to fix things on a few occasions, but failed to achieve. Too much faith was granted towards that con artist. Hence stagnation and the loss of a dedicated operator - PMA.
As for BZs proposal - that’s in the past. Time to move on. Didn’t get adequate backing as I presume most people were afraid of that level of liquidation. I doubt such a proposal would arise now with the current level of revitalisation.
In context - during that period the DAO was virtually dead - with no governance completed and no projects listed for a vote for around a year. Julian seemingly was on the cusp of being extradited.
But it didn’t fail - this organisation freed Julian Assange. Without its financial support, his legal campaign would have not been able to persevere and win - securing his freedom. So the AssangeDAO did succeed. It’s time to build upon that with no further distraction.
As for the future multi sig - one has to give them an opportunity to unite the DAO through regular meetings and community feedback with regard to at least 3 appropriate projects to commence. Logan and Zylo know their stuff. And the Consensus unit and in house lawyer are there to evaluate risk.
Forgive now. Look forward.This DAO feels stronger and in a better place now - but must secure funding. I agree the infighting between factions should end today.
Strictly speaking the evaluation period has finished - 2 weeks after August 26th is September 9th. (According to AIP 15 - Three weeks was set for the nomination period - which ended on the 26th August.)
The GS self-nomination, dated Sep 8th fell after the nomination period. Need to check the rules.
This AIP should go up for a vote. Current multisigs should make a decison about whether GS should be included.
Gabriel has called for stability and functionality for this place to gain funding here from WHS or any other entity. Please think deeper about how certain types of personal comments against each other may AFFECT everybody else in the DAO (including all of the shyer participants) before posting. Its not a school playground. Yet this stuff is neverending. In fact Im beginning to get suspicious vibes about why its being done. Please be sensible and delete your posts that are not related to the subject matter of the thread. Please think about it before posting it - and I mean all of you engaging in it.
The way this is phrased is a little confusing for me and I want to make sure I understand what you mean, @PeterT.
August 5 - nomination period starts
August 26 - discussion period starts
September 8 - Gabriel self-nominates
September 9 - Nominations/AIP due for a vote
Also I think Logan confirms this here, even if he meant one week from Aug. 15 - the nomination period would have ended on the 22nd August. If that is the case sudongpo may have not made the nomination cut off either according to Logan’s calendar??? Sudongpu appears to have nominated their self on Aug 24th - which is OK from my own estimate but not clear from Logan’s.
Thanks a lot for nominating yourself Gabriel. However, currently, you are in the consensus unit and therefore I believe, and I have said this many times, have a conflict of interest. If the consensus unit is removed, you would remove your conflict of interest. I also note that your company was paid 580.755 ETH by Wau Holland from the AssangeDAO funds (3.5%) as a “finder’s fee” in March 2022: Safe{Wallet} – Transaction history . For a long time I thought this was due to some translation issues, but I understand now it was to pay your entity which was not a non-profit. You failed to clarify that issue in 2022 when the issue arose. The last transaction moving 113 ETH to independent reserve, an Australian cryptoexchange, and emptying the safe took only place in May 2025. There has yet to be a public disclosure as to how all funds were spent and my enquiries have been rebuffed by you, though I still trust they were spent well on Julian’s Australia campaign. You are also in control of AssangeDAO twitter and the website. I should mention that you also tried to buy the AssangeDAO domain when lapsed, and when the owner failed to turn the domain over, it transpired that you had bought it. When Amir requested to be added to the X account, I understand you denied that. From all the people in the AssangeDAO, you are the only one who was actually paid a significant sum out of the Wau Holland funds. I think that should be clarified, when stating that your work is all on a voluntary basis.
Thank you Silke for adding the transparency. I think it is time the family who acted out of desperation (understandably) in 2022 - turns that around to help the DAO - who were the only organisation that were left without treasury - because it was new. It had enormous potential though. Because it had the best people at the beginning - friends of Julian.
Even Pak received a financial gift - they sent it all off to support a Ukraine charity.
Juicebox received DAO funds directly and perhaps overcharged this DAO with that 5% fee they took.
I think even the Courage Foundation may have indirectly benefitted from Wau Holland (they ran the US Assange Defense campaign, marketing firm was employed for that)? Did they also receive indirect donations from the DAO? Without full disclosure nobody knows what has happened.
The DAO needs Gabriel to acquire some financial support to help it restart. Retrospectively. People like Silke should not have to wait for years for outcomes. And look at all of the hours of work Logan and Zylo have undertaken.
Silke has there been tax filings in Germany, since the 2022 reaccreditation - re Wau Holland? I’m remembering that they lost their tax exemption? How can WH send funds to something which is a not a non-profit (isn’t that this DAOs current financial complexity)? I fear the unspent funds will be lost entirely now with this revelation.
As for GS becoming a multi-sig - probably too much central power consolidation and besides Gabriel did not meet the nomination cut-off. So that isn’t fair to those who did. Before a vote - this should be settled as it creates a future precedent - if one person is granted special treatment.
I think it is reasonable to calculate the time starting from the release of the recruitment information, that is, when everyone can see the specific requirements for multi-signaturer and then decide whether they meet the conditions to participate.The proposal is intended for community use, and official Twitter has also published recruitment information; externally, the timeline should be calculated based on the date the recruitment information was posted.
In other words, the registration period is from August 5 to August 26.
Also in the proposal is the fact that the GTU must shortlist the nominees down to 5 people
We only had 3 or 4 + now Gabriel.
we must have a selection of at least 5 people to move forward with the 2 new multisigs I believe, so the deadlines in my opinion are flexible until we have 5 nominees. I believe we now have 5 with Gabriel
There are many issues the DAO must resolve, Silke does bring up a good point about possible conflict of interest if Gabriel is on the multisig + the family unit.
We already voted in the past on the family unit, but perhaps now that Assange is free, should we delegate the “one vote veto” to only Assange himself (unless he is otherwise incapacitated/incarcerated) if Gabriel is going to be on the multisig?
I just think we really need to resolve one issue at a time here. Separately, but since Gabriel joining multisig is related to a possible conflict of interest of him being on the Assange family unit I can understand that being brought up here
Can we leave discussion about Wau Holland/JUSTICE token to the other threads?
I think this needs to be specifically related to the 5 multisigs and voting on them.
If Gabriel is added to the multisig does it have a conflict of interest? If so, should we vote again to remove the family unit? Or designate it to JA himself only?
I just don’t think we can move forward properly if we keep mixing issues together - let’s resolve one at a time. We can do this, let’s remain positive.
possible solutions
Elect Gabriel to multisig - and leave Assange family unit in tact with no change - if community determines no conflict of interest
If conflict of interest, remove Assange family unit, add Gabriel to multisig
If conflict of interest; designate Assange only (as long as he is free) as the only one who can veto proposals within the DAO.
Reject Gabriel for Multisig but continue to search for another member for multisig so we do not have any 3 multisig members belonging to same country (this was even discussed when the DAO was formed, a majority of multisig cannot be from the same country due to risk, real or perceived.)
Separately I believe Gabriel should offer some resolution or transparency with how any funds he received from Wau that came from the DAO via Pak were spent, or are to be spent. Even if just a summary/overview. But the community has already made it clear that the Wau issue is the most important as we move forward. Please discuss Wau issue in the other thread.
Continue with the process - Silke, BZ, Zylo plus two to be elected.
Given the low level of activity/low threshold of active participants here - practically impossible.
You will only get new talent when the DAO flourishes. Or goes on a recruitment drive (fresh recruits are needed here - a bit of headhunting is in order).
Worth a shot to ask Amir or Rose or Harry to act as alumuni/advisors/ a multisig or continuing multisig - rather than delay.
Perhaps explain this dilemma to them. If they’re reading - perhaps they could jump in.
The belonging to diverse parts of the world is going to be too hard. It doesn’t reflect the community makeup either. I don’t feel there is any chance of operations going forward by insisting on something that was feasible back in 2022 is still possible in 2025.
I think there is no other choice than to go with the four nominees who made the cut off. Unless one of the previous alumini - if they still have their keys - can be talked into hanging around a bit longer to secure the funding situation. So solution no. 5!
This crowd are not going to accept another round of nominations either. Or any further delay - this has already taken 6 weeks.
We don’t know if Julian wishes to be involved. I think he wants to live a non-political life and Wikileaks appears to be a reflection that he isn’t particularly active in any of that. I mean that was his baby.
Based on everyone’s discussion, I consider that we have the following three viable options:
1.Amir continues to serve as a multisig signer, and the community selects one person from the four candidates. regarding Alumni: We do not know much about him, and the community may find it difficult to accept the sudden addition of a stranger.
2.Consider Assange as the sole candidate for the consensus unit
He has gained freedom, and his mental state appears to be good, with multiple instances of his active participation in various activities.
He is not in the role of an “infant” who requires others to act on his behalf, and therefore, he should be considered the sole candidate for the consensus unit.
Correspondingly, Gabriel can be removed from the consensus unit and participate in the multisig election as a regular candidate.
3.I agree with Peter’s perspective. For the past three years, we have been prioritizing Assange’s interests, and now that the mission is accomplished, we should convey more trust and kindness, allowing the community to grow and thrive, rather than continuing with our previous approach.
The fact that candidates are from the same area should never be a standard for evaluating their merit or goodness.
This is the choice most aligned with procedural justice and also aids in building trust, resolving differences, and moving the community forward quickly.
In an ideal situation all multi sigs should be fully across corporate and financial law. That should be the no.1 selection criteria. That is a reason I listen to whatever Silke has to say. One can see what happens when proper advice isn’t sought.
I think this is the best option if the DAO continues to use his name. If he understandably doesn’t want that role/work/responsibility, the DAO should consider renaming itself to no longer use his name, even though it would continue to pursue the same principals that initially inspired it while acknowledging its history and original purpose.
There are safeguards - consensus unit can ask for a proposal to be modified or decline it. That’s the ultimate safeguard - but that should also be done transparently.
The consensus unit has no proposal rights, as far as I can ascertain.
Note the role separation factor listed below. Ideally if one submits a proposal and they happen to be a multi sig too - than that could be a conflict of interest. That needs to be monitored.
Silke should possibly have an unwritten executive role given her background. A training role in regard to professional conduct and expectations.
Obviously your expectations are high and thats being responsible too. So are your concerns. The multi sig role is a responsible position to undertake.
So they’ll work together as a stable workforce. If not, they will be admonished if collusion is apparent. You know what would help - proper meeting minutes. Full documentation. Full transparency. Then the community would learn who turns up, who makes rubbish statements, who is stonewalling, who is forgetting details in proposals, who is pushing the talk away from the agreed mission and so on.
Its important that multi sig members also are independent of the Consensus Unit. That should be a professional liaison too.
The DAO will have to add extra multisigs in the future. (5 to 7) Other than that Im not technicalnbut there must be solutions to these issues. Other DAOs have audits, use tranparency tools, add time delays, dashboard alarms, emergency pause functions. I don’t know - you know I don’t know enough about this stuff. Thats why Im inclined to suggest a headhunting exercise in the near future ie targetted recruitment. Something that PMA wanted to do 3 years ago!!
I agree to shortlist all 5/5 nominees including Gabriel.
If there is any issue with the Assange Family Unit / Veto it should be brought up in another proposal - but the community (JUSTICE holders) get to decide who is elected to the multisig anyways.
I have spoken with Logan and Silke and they have also agreed to shortlist all 5/5 multisig nominees.
Once we have agreement from the rest of the GTU we can proceed with the first proposal to elect the first multisig
Then once that finishes, we can immediately launch the second proposal to elect the second multisig.
