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.
Here is bZ,
bZ is here.
ever、always、forever….
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.
I thought so too. That is the day the call out for nominations on this thread started.
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.
May be the best solution for DAO is not to use his name. This will really break the deadlock of DAO.
After DAO considers registration as a legal entity, DAO will be bound by company law, and at the management level, including multi-signers and other staff hired, should consider compliance with the law. As for how to choose multi-signers, I advice there should be more far-sighted in this regard. Such as salary, tax payment, personnel list (real information), necessary workplace, etc.
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.
Other safeguards built into DAO governance -
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!!
The GTU must shortlist the nominated Multisigs
I think the community must decide via voting
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.
The community decides.
. حسناًحسناً ، افعل ذلك نأمل أن نتمكن من الهبوط في وقت مبكر .
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?