Actually I stated that the maxi bid strategy was denied a vote by the community. I presume the meeting where the multisigs took a vote on the maxi bid (ie from Amir’s meeting notes) was where and when that occured ie early Feb 2022.
I cannot locate the AIP bidding strategy document and read what was written or who proposed it by the way.
When Harry Halpin talked to Wau Holland there seemed to be a view expressed by Wau Holland that they were open to the idea of funding our projects. So we shouldn’t allow that to be forgotten. Its positive and it should be pursued. There are a number of projects that sound like they would be perfect and the DAO should maybe improve upon them and get Gabriel to faciltate. The DAO should do that next after the multi sig vote. It shouldn’t delay it as time maybe running out in Germany. But there is also the other project that sshould coincide and that would be setting up a legal entitty. But the DAO should probably act faster IMO.
Okay, @Logan . do you have any answer to this question?
Prior to that, whenever the price went down, there were always people coming out to verbal abuse the consensus unit and Mr. Assange, as well as people shouting slogans that they should be accountable for the price. Apparently verbal abuse is against community norms, and after bz privately told me not to ban a member who was verbal abusing Mr. Assange, I did not comply with his wishes and kicked that member off the discord channel. From that bz developed a hatred for me.
So once you become a multi-signer do you organize or let these behaviors go?
I thought you were referring to the latest proposal, but it turns out you meant MaxID.
The final decision-maker for MaxID is Assange himself. The community can understand that he made choices harmful to the community while under extreme fear, yet we cannot accept that, long after regaining his freedom, he still keeps his distance from the community.
MaxID lacks procedural justice, and that is the root of every conflict. Whoever created the problem must now step forward and solve it.This incident shows that the consensus unit and the community can have fundamentally conflicting interests.
The community is now caught in a dilemma: on one hand we want the consensus unit to play a bigger role; on the other hand, Gabriel already holds a veto, and becoming a multi-siger would concentrate too much power, potentially harming the community in the future. There is no mechanism for the community to override that veto.
Perhaps Gabriel ’s joining the multi-sig could make it a more active participant, but are the two really equivalent?I heard Gabriel is running for multi-sig out of fear that too many signers might come from the same jurisdiction. If that is the case, Peter, could you join the multi-siger to resolve this concern? At present I remain neutral on Gabriel ’s candidacy. The lesson from MaxID is clear: once a process is flawed, bigger problems are inevitable.
I don’t understand the technical or the cryptic market, so no. I would never be the right fit. Ive followed Julian’s case for 15 years with almost too much interest for my own sake. KInd of an obsession.
For the last two months if you hadn’t noticed sudongpo, Id left.
I just want to see this place progress - and receive complete support. Its always required funding to run its operations. It just kills me that it received nothing and has gone through so many lows.
That’s not to say I agree with everything people here have said or done in the past either - buts its time to move forward - forgive. Truth telling helps. Lack of transparency does not. But its time to go forward with those really exciting projects.
Ive told a few Assange enthusiasts I know about them and they also believe they’re great. I think the general public would get really excited about them TBH. The ideas being generated are awesome, they really are.
Yes, I understand the emotional harm caused by over-involvement, as I too feel the same heartache and sense of powerlessness. during your absence, I strived to advance our governance, seeking the path of least resistance. even after countless arguments with others.
I feel that my own mental health has suffered as well. I believe the main culprit is the absence of the Assange family. Gabriel’s indifference toward Assange supporters—when he should be actively involved and clearly state his position on many issues—leaves us to charge ahead by ourselves. the Assange supporters are harmed. this is an abnormal, exploitative relationship with the supporters. this is not justice.
Only we ourselves truly know the difficulty of this process; every step forward is incredibly hard. Who can lend us a hand? The community is like a patient bleeding profusely, and also like a helpless infant held in an embrace.
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.
Let me tell you my understanding of the question you threw out.
DAO has always had the power to govern, that is real, there are 11 proposals one after another from 2022 to 2024 as well, why would you say there is no real power to govern, I think you are basing this on the fact that you guys are not free to put written proposals into snapshot, but the real problem is the lack of good ideas, have any of you guys come up with constructive proposals in the last three years? Has anyone discussed the proposals they want to write on the forums or discord? Except bz wrote some proposals that being opposed by people and no one ever made a constructive move, that’s the problem. Maybe you guys hate the consensus unit’s veto power of as well, but the fact is that it was not used once, bz’s proposal only asked for changes, but he only made pointless changes. Also the power of the consensus unit is given by AIP-3, the collective will. And also the development can’t go against DAO’s core mission in that time.
DAO made all decisions prior by multi-signer before token distribution, which was the policy at the time, and that policy is still used when auctioning the Clock. Until AIP-1 is filed.
WH surplus funds can’t be returned directly to DAO, perhaps it would be wise to work with them by establishing a trustworthy program. Accepting reality is better than nothing.
Assange has not made any public speeches or given any message to anyone since his release from prison, and maybe he needs to be coordinated, maybe he needs more time, at least we should give him the lowest respect. BTW Assange knew about DAO while in prison and suggested DAO to set up a book club. It is to this day there are still people who want Assange to mentor DAO, unfortunately no one wants to fulfill his mentorship.
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.
