Next time if there is a nominations call type proposal - instead of the period being mentioned ( 3 weeks, 2 weeks etc) just carefully construct it so that the cut off date and the evalutaion period end date are properly communicated. Not sure if the forum header coluld include all of that information too but that would be useful.
These regulations/rules would apply in Australia-
Exchanges must share user data with the ATO for data-matching. The ATO is the Australian Tax office.Mandatory record keeping applies for 5 years.
Cryptocurrencies are legal and treated as property for tax and regulatory purposes, rather than as currency.
There are no blanket prohibitions preventing incorporated entities from using cryptocurrency exchanges.
Businesses can use them for purposes such as:
-
Holding crypto as an investment.
-
Accepting crypto as payment for goods/services.
-
Trading or converting crypto to fiat currency (AUD).
-
Engaging in crypto-related activities like mining or staking.
However, usage must comply with federal regulations overseen by key agencies: the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
Businesses operating a crypto exchange (i.e., providing exchange services) must register as a Digital Currency Exchange (DCE) provider. This applies if the entity is an exchange provider; not if just using one this time of year. Don’t think this applies.
If it has operated since 2022 then it would have undergone at least 2 annual audits. It would be going through its third around this time of year.
Likely there is nothing suspicious here. Australia has very strong regulations.
what about nominating yourself?
I mention this to make clear funds from that “finders fee” paid by Wau Holland to Gabriel were moved to be converted into something else (to a crypto exchange) long after Julian was freed. I dont doubt Australia’s crypto regulation or regulatory oversight.
1 Like
I wanted to understand that the conversion itself was not irregular, as in illegal. So I researched the information. I assumed it would be difficult for some here to research Australian Government websites.
But questions remain for Gabriel to answer why it has been done that way and whether such aligns with Wau Holland’s mission.
All of the issues you raised after Julian was released are relevant. I don’t understand why Gabriel can’t say the funds are for xxxxxx. Presumably they’re for Assange’s Pardon. If they are, then does the DAO need to do more in that respect when it has more than enough projects to give priority to?
This is why the answers/transparency are relevant I think. People need facts to make informed decisions about its priorities.
This sort of thing does make me think twice about devoting any time, energy and money to “campaigns”.
According to the program, next week will be the time to vote on the two multi-signature candidates. Have the GTC members discussed it yet? The community is looking forward to it.
@SilkeNoa three years ago, when DAOs were an emerging phenomenon with virtually no legal or regulatory framework, did you believe that having three multi-signature participants from the same region posed legal risks based on assumption, or were there specific legal provisions targeting multi-signature mechanisms? please provide the specific jurisdictional legal provisions that existed at the time regarding restrictions on multi-signature participants from the same region.
In today’s more welcoming cryptographic environment, what additional targeted legal provisions have been introduced concerning multi-signature arrangements?
If there’s no better plan, I agree with zylo’s suggestion to include Gabriel.I agree to shortlist all 5/5 nominees including Gabriel.now we can hold a vote on snapshot now, and we can discuss the subsequent matters after the governance is implemented.
Sudongpo - what about the risk if participants are based in China and are a Chinese citizen? And if there was a sudden crack down on citizens involved in foreign DAOs?
Hong Kong and Macau citizens are permitted to be involved in DAOs - but not mainland Chinese??? So I’ve researched.
By law, Chinese mainland citizens are regulated:
Virtual currency (including DAO tokens) is not recognised as legal tender and is deemed illegal for financial use. Jan 2021 - Notice on Preventing Risks from Virtual Currency Trading (China)
Announcement on Preventing Financial Risks from Token Issuance (“ICO Ban”) 2017 (China) - “Tokens are treated as illegal fundraising tools.”
Prohibited Activities by Chinese citizens : Joining a DAO typically requires acquiring governance tokens (e.g., via purchase or airdrop), which violates the 2017 ICO ban and 2021 trading prohibitions. Voting or contributing to DAO decisions using these tokens constitutes “virtual currency-related business activities,” explicitly banned under the 2021 notices.
Even passive holding or participation in decentralized finance (DeFi) DAOs is illegal if it involves token-based incentives. I presume this is a gray area - as if the Chinese Government - for now - is turning a blind eye to it. But that doesn’t mean they may not be monitoring it.
Presumably that means a Chinese mainland citizen should not be a multisig or hold Justice tokens as that would be in violation of their own country’s legal system. Is there an understanding re the ban to cross border jursidictions?
In summary
So I presume it is a neccesity to avoid too much concentration - in case there was a crackdown - that could end up affecting the DAOs operations. I don’t think it is regional - I think its country based - as in no American citizens should be involved in decision making either at the time (we know that E lied about this by claiming to be an Australian).
no,no,no.First, there is no law that stipulates that individuals purchasing and holding cryptocurrencies is illegal.
Second, administrative regulations impose strict restrictions on financial institutions participating in related businesses, but do not specify limits on individual participation; they only express the obligation to remind of possible investment risks.
Lawyers’ advice should be based on clear legal provisions and objective facts, rather than imagination and speculation.
Why were these not obstacles when raising funds? Did it express a refusal of funds from people in these regions? Why are they obstacles now?
There was no nationality restriction when raising funds, and it was even open to US citizens, so is the current nationality restriction reasonable?
Isn’t this double standards? Is this still fair? Does it conform to the principles of freedom and justice?
I haven’t seen other projects with such restrictions; this should be the first project in the crypto circle to explicitly express racial discrimination tendencies. many people take it for granted instead of providing institutional solutions; this is a regression of civilization.
1 Like
OK. I agree some of these announcements could be fake news to affect markets - as in the 2025 one which Forbes has disputed. The VPN and 2021 ones stand though. I honestly think Silke’s intention is about reducing risk. Its not personal.
Many problems are based on imagination rather than facts, always assuming the worst possible outcome and believing that any cooperation or attempt is doomed to fail. The absurdity of excessive worry - in the absence of actual support, purely fictional anxiety scenarios not only deviate from reality but also hinder rational decision-making.
Another obvious example is 35’s frequent expression of anxiety about $justice being overlyhyped.However,the fact is that $justice’s low liquidity over the past three years indicates that the market does not view it as a speculative target.like a penniless homeless person worrying about how to spend millions after becoming a billionaire.
This non-fact-based thinking distorts people’s cognition, focusing attention on non-existent risks. Only when community members can distinguish between facts and speculation, and build a discussion framework based on reliable information, can they avoid decision-making errors caused by cognitive biases. In DAO governance, it is particularly important to be vigilant against replacing factual verification with subjective speculation. This not only helps implement current governance but also lays a rational foundation for DAO’s long-term governance.
People must submit to reason.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Prejudice is the enemy of knowledge，
Decisions must remain grounded in facts.
Dear GTU members, this week should have been the time for voting. The community is anxiously awaiting the outcome of our discussions. Please proceed according to the agreed-upon rules and do not pause. Where is the consensus currently being reached? If GTU members cannot reach a decision, please let the community vote.
Okay, I agree with Zylo’s proposal. the associated risks are manageable, and having Gabriel participate in the election is feasible. we should reach a consensus and move forward with the governance process.
1) Finder Fee Funds & Demand for Return
According to on-chain records, a total of 580.755 ETH was deposited into address 0xeD2796a21fE3F9a004A53a27947056C1a5c42131 under the name of “Finder Fee”. As of February 1, 2023, the balance was 159.48 ETH, and no outflows occurred until the day of Assange’s release on June 25, 2024.
This indicates that only 421.27 ETH of the Finder Fee was actually used for Assange’s freedom campaign, meaning the remaining 159.48 ETH should have been returned to the community. However, on-chain activity shows:
- Two suspicious transactions on August 8, 2024
- The remaining 113.55 ETH transferred to an Australian exchange on May 11, 2025
We have reasonable grounds to suspect Gabriel has converted these funds into AUD. Regardless of their specific use, these assets belong to the community.
As a major donor to the DAO, I formally demand that Gabriel:
Immediately return the full 159.48 ETH to the community , particularly the 113.55 ETH already moved to the exchange.
2) $Justice on Bitfinex
The approximately 700 million $Justice currently held in Bitfinex’s market-making account were likely purchased using funds from the “Finder Fee”. Given the absence of meaningful trading liquidity on this exchange, we demand the withdrawal of these assets to the community treasury.
We reserve the right to recover all community assets through on-chain governance measures.
3）On June 27, 2024, Stella raised 8.35 BTC via Twitter:
The primary donation source was:
These funds were allocated to cover flight expenses and Julian Assange’s personal living costs.WHS has covered the flight expenses,but they Complained about it
And yes, Assange campaign should have reimbursed WHS, because they explicitly
asked for donations to pay for the plane, but they didn’t.
we request the return of community funds from “finder fee”.
April 8th, 2022 - Wau Holland transferred funds to the Assange Campaign International (ACI) in the amount of 580.755 ETH (3.5 %) as a commission/finders fee for fundraising. This was equivalent to approx… Euros $1.7 million.
If the remainder of the Australian Assange Campaign funds is parked in an Australian exchange - what will be the intended purpose? Presumably, it is to pay for the Pardon campaign - so is there an issue with being more open about this with this commuity? Isn’t it better to have transparency and describe the intended purpose of those remaining funds rather then this issue fester?
I can see that all socials - X, Facebook, Tik Tok have been closed. Campaign – Assange Campaign
We do not know if Wau Holland have received approval for the transfer under the finders fee description by their German regulators but we do know that Wau Holland will lose its tax exemption status if it is determined that its expenses are not used for stated purposes. Wau Holland under their legal regulations is not allowed to transfer funds to individuals for personl usage. They would be disqualfied to operate.
Re Flight expenses - the family owed the Australian Government USD $520,000 for a private jet with diplomats and a security detail to transfer Assange back to Australia after his trial.
Two emergency appeals were set up to raise funds to pay for Julian’s transport. Wau Holland was a guarantor as they signed an agreement with the Australian Government and paid the money owed.
The UK emergency fundraiser consisted of a fiat currency donation and a BTC donation from the general public. Plus there was a much smaller crowdfundraiser organised by Courage. Fundraiser for Courage Foundation by Free Assange : Emergency appeal to cover massive cost of jet and recovery.
This crowdraiser promised to refund Wau Holland - “The funds raised through this fundraiser will be withdrawn by the Courage Foundation and sent to the Wau Holland Foundation, who will be handling the payment of the jet”
However both fundraisers do not appear to have been closed yet and it is unclear if Wau Holland have been reimbursed or in fact, will be reimbursed.
The UK crowdfunder remains open but has not publicly stated that it will reimbuse Wau Holland- https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/free-julian-assange.
The Australian Government and Wau Holland agreement is here - dated 16/6/2024 before crowdfundraising initiatives.
https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/dfat-foi-lex11446_0.pdf
1 Like
As of last year, they hadn’t been repaid and I got the impression that they didn’t expect to be, though I have to emphasize that the latter was just my impression and not something I recall anyone at Wau Holland Stiftung saying directly.
I get the impression that some of Wau Holland knew ie AMuller ? who signed the doc but others did not know and presumed they would be repaid. Either way it isn’t a good legacy look for Julian to have a fundraiser sitting there that hasn’t been spent on what it is was assigned to be spent on. I am concerned that such actions ruin Julian’s legacy in the eyes of the public and should be remedied. Its very disappointing as a long term supporter to see this, Gabriel.
1 Like