VETO POWER = ALIGNMENT WITH JULIAN ASSANGE AND ITS BENEFITS - PRESTIGE, MARKETING THROUGH BRAND AWARENESS, POTENTIAL FOR WAU HOLLAND FUNDING APPROVAL, CURRENT PLANNED PROJECT ADOPTION
VETO POWER REMOVAL = LOST CONNECTION TO JULIAN, INVALIDATION OF PLANNED PROPOSALS, DIRECTION UNFORSEEABLE
Re Wau Holland funding – the DAO should follow through on contact with Wau Holland as per Proposal：Request for the Return of 3,681.59 ETH from Wau Holland Foundation to the AssangeDAO Treasury which was elected as the first priority.
I don’t think a simple letter of demand is going to be adequate. I doubt WH can comply under German law, even if they thought they should.
This wording is relevant:
I think relevant projects which have been proposed which align with Wau Holland and our mission should be presented with a request to Wau Holland to discuss the potential for those to be funded. Each of those projects should include an estimate of the required budget to be requested. So Wau Holland would at least want to see:
- Background information about the DAO organisation, including our current financial statement
- Detailed outlines for say all of the 2026 Projects for which funding is being sought.
- Statements of expected outcomes of the project and mutual benefits
- Risks to the success of the project and how these will be managed
- A detailed budget, broken down into staffing (what is this in terms of a fulltime people amount, what is the DAOS salary level??) other costs – such as capital (new equipment), consumables for the project, marketing costs, consultant costs, overhead costs – power, ancillaries
- Evaluation of each project – evidence of tracking of funds allocated to achieve the outcomes which were intended under the grant agreement.
Now the only person at the DAO who could carry the right level of gravitas IMO to proceed with such a request to open dialogue would be Gabriel. Thus I don’t believe ANY funding application would be possible from Wau Holland if Gabriel had his veto power removed - which translates to a guaranteed alignment with Julian Assange’s legacy.
Behind the scenes Julian may assist in that dialogue– but it is obvious that he will not be publicly involved or speak about this.
There is a need for a fact-finding mission regarding the DAOs legals too. Whether Silke can help (and be fully compensated) or if the DAO would need to find a legal/tax expert representative is another question. If so, that would be an additional expense which should be included in a grant application.
I also think a consultant with an accounting background is required for some expert advice on how budgets for projects need to be put together and properly allocated and the data monitored with detailed accounting reports. The DAO has to realise that WH will not commit to funding of projects without its financial duty being adhered to from a legal and tax perspective.
The DAO should develop an enduring relationship with Wau Holland and apply for grants annually. The DAO must retain the name AssangeDAO if it wants to establish itself, secure funding and thus grow IMO.
Perhaps a more specific follow up AIP proposal pertaining to the next actions required in regard to the Wau Holland issue is needed???
1st action - Gabriel contacts Wau Holland re feasibility of a grant application approach
2nd action - DAO manages the preparation of detailed grant applications accordingly (may need consultants to do the estimates of costs unless it has an inhouse accountant with years of experience in the corporate world that is willing and able)