There is a good idea. We are hope can do it as soon as possible.
Hi, I want to communicate with you. There are some messages above. I hope we can reach some consensus.
I hope we can have further exchanges if you have some times.
Ok, can chat in discord continue, glad to get your message.
Thanks for help to lis the historical proposals, @stellarmagnet and @Andrew provided great contribution for the DAO. but as you see, they were not implemented by reasons. the main reason lies in that for a DAO, the token holder, proposer, operator, multiple signers…with such multiple identity groups, complex coupling and game will be brought about from multiple perspectives such as power, interest and stance, which will eventually make it very difficult for the overall operation and governance – an issue that I thought long and hard about while writing this proposal, as well as observing and summarizing the experiences of other highly efficient DAO communities.
so,in this proposal, three basic roles are set:
a) token holder;
then the most important role will be the NFT holder, when the DAPP corresponding to this proposal is developed, “Top 10 AssangeDAO.NFT holders with level 3” will be the proposers+operator automatically.The Assange DAO has no shortage of talented people, and this mechanism is to have talented, passionate, and capable members to work and provide services.
Imagine that when different people have ideas about helping Julia、growing the community、issue new proposals…they must first hold the corresponding level of NFT、be supported by as many $Justice holders as possible—the frequency of NFT transactions will be more active.
certainly, standard requirements should be added to this group of people–“top 10 AssangeDAO.NFT”, who must have certain characteristics:
you can check detail in " Governance" section in the link above,I’ve updated it.
about the 2nd multi-sig requirement suggestion - there are many other ways to be prejudiced - maybe too many to list.
Perhaps it’d just be better to say ‘Provide rationales when they oppose others’ or ‘Demonstrate exemplary commitment to avoiding prejudice’ - or to just lump #2 in with #3.
Just my rushed thoughts - would LOVE to hear others’ ideas, cuz I want a framework to think about such issues separate from the DAO anyway
Hey y’all, first of all, thanks @bZ-bbian9388 for the detailed Roadmap. It’s a lot of info and being new here it’s a lot to wrap your head around all at once.
A bit about my myself. I didn’t know anything about Mr. Assange when I first got into the “Web3” space in late December 2021. However, over the last 9+ months I’ve learned more and more about him and it’s hard not to fall in love with the guy while also wanting to scream and shout from a rooftop about the injustice happening right in front of our eyes.
With that said, it’s evident that there have been hard times with this DAO for reasons I’m not aware of and I know others won’t be either when they decide to join. It won’t matter though because they understand right from wrong and will be joining this movement because of that reason alone. From my perspective this isn’t a “project” where you’re going to 2x, 10x, or 20x your “investment” in the first month you join, I’m not sure if that will ever be the case, nor should it matter. The priority here is gaining voices and likeminded individuals in order to do everything we can to free Julian from the hellish conditions he’s being forced to live in, deteriorating each day he stays locked up, and missing out on the opportunity to see his kids grow up.
While I don’t own any $JUSTICE tokens at this current time, the mission is clear to me, and this is my input regarding what should be the focus with some opinions thrown in as well regarding what I believe to be the most effective game plan to get the ball rolling.
(#’s in () are related to ‘Procedures for implementing the program and supplemental notes’ on the Roadmap)
- (Listed as #2), buy-back half of ETH held by the treasury to Justice Tokens
- I think this should be priority before moving forward with anything else, or at least get the first buy initiated. Reason being this space moves fast and it could take one “whale” coming in and buying up a mass supply to turn it into a plutocracy quickly. I also notice that MEXC holds an 8% supply (not sure if this is good or bad?), and the top 100 holders currently hold a 64.46% supply of tokens. It’s hard to know if we’ve already missed the boat but I’d like to think the current holders are people inline with the overall mission, it would be hard for me to assume otherwise. So, getting a substantial supply into the Treasury where we can trust where it’s held would help put minds at ease, imo.
- (#3) Structure:
- Is this a company? Based on some comments I’ve read as well as reading through the roadmap it does seem like this will become an actual business entity which I feel like opens the door up to legalities that need to be addressed before anything goes live. More so speaking to the marketplace. The last thing we’d want to do is roll things out before making sure we’re not putting the DAO at risk.
- Therefor, I believe the “staff” should be the next priority.
- At first, I don’t know if compensation should be necessary unless it’s something that can be provided easily (someone that’s willing to compensate said Staff). The mission here should be to free Assange, money shouldn’t be a factor or an incentive for someone to want to join at this time and contribute.
- After the team is put together, the rest should flow easily I feel like.
- (#1) Discord server link being repaired and posting on Twitter will take little time.
- (#5) – after completing product development, test on the test network
- From my understanding test nets are public. Would it be wiser to test on a private network? If so, I know Nameless is hosting a Beta for their new project and this is the main feature. Giving people access to test their projects and contracts privately before launching to the masses. Just wanted to throw this idea out there
- (#6) Hire a third-party security agency to view codes and smart contracts
- We need to be cautious here and maybe trust our devs more than third-party. Even Slock.it had Deja Vue go through their smart contract 3 or so times and things still didn’t go as planned. Third parties can still jeopardize the smart contracts and at the end of the day we should be trusting our own who are putting it together.
- (#8) Treasury’s multi-signers, I don’t know enough to comment here.
That’s my two sense on what I think should be priority right now, after all of those opportunities are addressed, then the modules should be able to roll out smoothly and effectively because all the back-end work will be complete and contracts battle tested with a strong team behind it all. Realistically once the teams put together and the security of the Discord is confirmed the word can start spreading if everyone who’s currently a part of this is on the same page.
Sorry if I’m overstepping or completely missing the mark here, I’ll speak more on the modules later as I know those are a priority as well.
About the the discussion on token price you’ve mentioned, I personal agree with your opinoin.
The Assange DAO rejects malicious vandals and attackers, but there is no conflict between making the price of the token active and helping Mr. Assange.
Instead, the chronic lack of a proper mechanism to empower the price of the token has contributed to the damage to Mr Assange’s reputation.
Well，I hope my above messages can become an important part of the community consensus.Based on the above information, I can put forward some good suggestions，which will inspire and unite everyone.
Hey fam, sorry I didn’t respond to your message like I said I would
I read your message and there’s a lot of opinion in there about how the DAO has been or how it was ran up to this point, most of which I can’t really comment on, nor do I see it as relevant based on the discussion being around the Roadmap and how we move forward.
1. What proposal are you recommending to be voted on here?
2. Community governance is important, but we need to have a united community before we can move forward with anything, which it seems like we’re far from that based on comments I’ve seen. I believe this will come after other priorities are met, giving the DAO more structure to be able to properly handle this important topic.
3. We shouldn’t be throwing stones at our own here, I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion, but I would like to hear more about why you feel this way so hopefully it can be addressed and resolved.
- How was the community divided? Was it a physical divide or a metaphorical? A little confused by what you mean there. Or are you just referring to different “types” of contributors?
- Speculation is a person’s point of view which we can’t control. Same with pumps, anyone can create a “pump” at any given time at their own discretion if they have the funds available. I’m not sure anyone is actively trying to pump or concerned about a pump at this current time based on the Roadmap provided.
- As far as “Donor” vs “Speculator”, do you mean spectator? Regardless, I don’t feel like we need to classify anyone under one umbrella. That just creates a divide in itself which like you’ve stated is not what we should be striving for.
I agree with what you stated here, and I think that’s what we’re trying to accomplish with this proposal. That is to get everyone on the same page, rowing in the same direction, to achieve the overall goal set fourth from the beginning.
As far as this DAO declining, I’m not sure we’re far enough along to make a statement like that. It seems (based on the Roadmap) that the plans are in place, it’s just about getting things in motion with the consensus of the community. Like I stated in my previous reply to the Roadmap, I’m not aware of things that have happened in the past with this DAO, neither will anyone else that decides to join, nor should it matter. There’s modules to roll out and a team to be built, once the structure is created the inclusiveness and community will follow shortly after with little to no effort.
I’d also love to hear about your suggestions that could help inspire and unite everyone, we shouldn’t be holding any suggestions back that you feel can create that, we need it
你说的是否决权吗？ 如果是这样，我理解，但我也认为有必要建立某种类型的结构，使恶意行为者无法进入并抛出 DAO。
(Sorry for my terrible Chinese, it’s Google Translate)
否决权的原文是：“他们要求保留否决（拒绝）他们认为可能对朱利安·阿桑奇（Julian Assange）或对他的法律辩护有害的未来提案的能力” — 同理而言，我的理解是：如果提案对朱利安·阿桑奇或对他的法律辩护不构成伤害，那么家族不会否决。
Is that what you’re talking about? If you’re talking about this part of the proposal:
Before post the proposal here, I‘ve arranged two conference calls with other multi-signers and the Assange family to discuss and ask for their opinions. So as you can see, it is already version 1.7 and has gone through six time updates. it kept following the community’s earlier proposal process, which was to retain the family’s reject power.
The text of the reject power: “They request to maintain the ability to veto (reject) future proposals that they believe may be harmful to Julian Assange or harmful to his legal defense”----to paraphrase: If the proposal does not harm Julian Assange or his legal defense, the family will not reject it.
Conversely, if a proposal that clearly does not harm Julian Assange or the legal defense is rejected by the family, then the “dictatorship” you describe holds true.
So, from my personal understanding: the current veto(reject) is not a dictatorship, on the contrary, it is a kind of protection and recognition of the basic thrust, the principle, the legitimacy of the community, is a kind of support from the family.
Thanks,Let’s move forwar！
Little bit worried that this then comes down to wealth factors - top NFT holders? Could see a “political” takeover (in existence already with the Trump re election camp here) and a hidden agenda. Assange is nobody’s tool. His freedom is the only focus.
Will we get to know the backgrounds of the “top NFT holders”?
Would be happier if safeguards - such as non-political alignment re US election outcomes were factored in. Would like to see a truly diverse management team “elected” - not filled with right wing elements from the US. Be very cautious.
So here you have -
Do not hold ethnic or racial、language、region prejudice. This needs to include strong political affiliations distinct from freeing Julian Assange IMO. and there should be a means to factor in the release of position holders if they act in anyway to harm Julian Assange.
This article looks more like an essay than a proposal. The soundness and logic of the arguments in it need to be professionally evaluated, and it cannot be used as a proposal until the results of professional analysis are available. Because it has many unreasonable points that need to be corrected. And the paper itself needs to be agreed upon.
First of all its minting process is a JUSTICE Token conversion process, with the $JUSTICE in hand to buy NFT, so that the NFT holder can control the community process. Its essence or plutocratic control of the community. This is dangerous and could very well destroy the AssangeDAO situation and deprive AssangeDAO of its true supporters. Plutocratic control of the community is something that was previously spurned during the discussion.
*For NFT holders only to participate in the book club activities
This will make DAO lose its openness and reduce the opportunity to promote Mr. Assange, and setting a threshold here will make DAO narrow-minded
The NFT governance community does not address the current issues (e.g. lack of community outreach to Mr. Assange, lack of participation in signature events, lack of rigorous governance structure), nor does it address the plutocracy of proposal voting. But more seriously it gives the plutocracy the opportunity to control the DAO and opens the door for the CIA to infiltrate into the decision making, executive level.
I agree with you！Also I personally don’t like the idea of a class in the community. The “top NFT holders” are like aristocrats present in the community.
I don’t think you can enforce a lack of political affiliations here, considering we want to free a political prisoner. (Hijacking the DAO for non-Assange reasons would be another matter, but I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about.)
Some are benign - others are not.
Only a diverse skilled management team should be considered. There should be some quality control - other than top NFT holders. Previous DAO experience would be an asset to look for, for instance. other qualities - detailed technical knowledge of DAO frameworks, lead open discussion on all DAO matters with the community, some leaders should have finance expertise, some should have marketing and media communications capabilities. If necessary I would like to see our leaders be capable of presenting at international conferences and front the media. Confer with the Assange Family. We had those sorts of people at the very beginning.
Will be very happy to see the feedback from the consensus unit - of which BZ-bbian9388 is factoring in. Good job BZ for listening.
@rave I do agree with you about community leaders, the leadership should be more professionals and all should be professionals in the relevant field.
According to this “proposal”, all one needs to do to enter the leadership is to have $JUSTICE tokens ready, which is dangerous and irresponsible to the majority of Mr. Assange’s supporters!