Proposal draft:AssangeDAO RoadMap

Also SBT (Soul Bound Token) is becoming mainstream in governance in the crypto world and it was proposed by ethereum founder vitalik earlier this year. A wallet one vote that cannot be traded and can be reclaimed by the issuer, which means it can only be sent directly by the issuer to a separate wallet, and these SBTs will not be traded, then it is pure and has nothing to do with money. In fact with the recent initial use of SBT on Biance, it is all the more important that we follow the newer and fairer technology.

vitalik’s paper on SBT: Soulbound

1 Like

It’s “top ten 10 AssangeDAO.NFT holder”, not “top NFT holders”.
means: The top 10 AssangeDAO.NFT holders who entrusted by &Justice token holder, It has nothing to do with rank、nobility、wealth factors、aristocrats or political.

On the contrary, it is designed to break up the chaebol by bringing out professionals, capable people with a passion for community work. At present, it is a chaebol monopoly to simply decide the power based on the number of tokens (whether it is community affairs, voting weight, influence on the price of token). what is more serious is that many people who hold a large amount of token are not care about community work, nor professional, they may just want to be an investor.

Certainly, all members will know these NFT holder, that’s in the implementation phase after NFTS launch. for example, can set a channel, using on-chain robots, so that qualified people who are interested in working for the community can verify and introduce themselves before they provide services to the community…

1 Like

Thank you for clarifying - my misunderstanding. Let’s hope the new team are far better at giving feedback.

Glad to exchange understanding with you and it will be more beneficial to the improvement of the overall draft.

1 Like

“This article looks more like an essay than a proposal”
—This is an overall framework proposal for the future development of the community. It’s the opposite. It’s not a essay. What is a reasonable proposal?

“with the $JUSTICE in hand to buy NFT“
—On the contrary, instead of buying NFTS with Justice token, where in the draft does it say buy NFTS with Justice tokens?

“Its essence or plutocratic control of the community.”
----On the contrary, the threshold for owning NFTS has been lowered in order to break the current chaebol influence that holders of large amounts of Justice coins have over community affairs.

“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”
-----Totally wrong. the book club is just one piece of the community. It’s not the whole community. It is established according to the suggestion of Mr.Julia. In the implementation process of subsequent specific products, the book club implements a model of Learn to Update. If any NFT holder wants to upgrade his NFT, You can join the book club by taking online courses on cypherpunks, the exploits of Mr. Assange, and the development of the community. In this way, people can change their misunderstanding of the community while getting an NFT upgrade (see how many people are making nonsense and smears because they don’t know the story of Mr. Assange and the actual development of the community, just because the price of the community is low?).

“The NFT governance community does not address the current issues”
—“On the contrary, the purpose of this proposal is to solve the existing problems in the community: NFTS can establish relationships with any other community who supporting Julia around the worl, other communities can use NFTS as a proof of participation in activities(Did you really readt the other modules in the draf? Such as the Union.NFT module), and NFTS can automatically form teams of community operators, breaking the excessive concentration of token-plutocrats.”

The book club is proposed by Mr.Julia, in this proposal is to add the upgrade mechanism of NFT in order to promote people to use and circulate NFT. Anyone can choose whether or not to join book club, because it is just a small module in the community, not mandatory.

“top NFT holder” is wrong, it’s top ten NFT holder, means: The top 10 AssangeDAO.NFT holders who entrusted by &Justice token holder. because anyone can own a corresponding level of NFT, and it is voluntary to obtain the support of all Justice holders by presenting his profile to them and expressing his willingness to work in the community. this is just the more fair, and broke the phenomenon of aristocrats

This part of your screenshot is only the initial NFT release phase, the other modules are closely related, then any NFT holder in any one module can influence the NFT level, weight, and rarity by participating in activities.

In addition, the reason the NFTS were originally issued in association with different number of holdings is that the purpose is to form an economic system associated with the tokens – any development plan or phased action of the community cannot be separated from the JUSTICE token holders. but at the same time, to maintain the gradual establishment of fairness and break down the aristocrats.

"Soul Bound Token " it is more suitable for identification, such as KYC, but AssangeDAO cannot identify all NFT holders, it is very dangerous.

In addition, if it can not be traded, flow, and is not suitable for the current development needs of the community: because the NFT will be a multimedia carrier, including the story of Mr. Assange, the story of the community development… do we want NFTS to stay out of circulation so that fewer people know about the community and pay attention to Mr. Assange? strangely…

Yes, one of the goals of this proposal is to use NFTS to form community operations teams. make the community more inclusive and open, more people with different areas of expertise and skills can help and support the community operations if who are willing and supported by enough justice holders:

  1. He must hold the corresponding level of NFTS, which is lower than the threshold for someone to buy a huge number of Justice tokens.
  2. He must tell the community what expertise he has and what ideas he has for the development of the community… to gain the support of the Justice holders.
    Only then he will become part of the community operations team.
1 Like

STAKE JUSTICE to mint NFT, and then the people who have these NFT cannot be used as criteria to enter the management team. It’s bad that community management positions are “bought” by how much money is available. This will make it easy for the CIA to get into the management team with money. We need to select competent people in the world wild to manage it, not from people with as many tokens as possible. I think there are many suitable people who could be invited in with Mr. Assange’s long term influence.

Also SBT is far superior to NFT in terms of management. NFT can work well in other areas, but not for team management and voting.

Really? it’s centralized of the family?
can’t believe this happened in a DAO.

Yeah, should have some experience leaders into the DAO;
thanks Bz-bbian9388 for Good job.
but still expecting get a reply as my previous question, HAHA… @bZ-bbian9388 did you forget it ?

First: it’s not STAKE JUSTICE to mint NFT, suggest you actually totally read the proposal。
Second:This is a crypto community, the token holders or NFT holders can not be trusted to participate in or lead the community work, but to go outside to invite who have no actual relationship with the community,it is the most risky behavior. What is your intention? how do you know they are not danger to the community?

Just a correction re language - use they instead of he as it is more inclusive and more common worldwide now.

Examples of expertise would be a necessary skills check for voting/shortlisting people…

1 Like

Sorry, the reply to your two questions:
1\ The roadmap seems to use NFT as the governance and main participation community mode, why ?
In fact, this problem is complicated, it involves many aspects. it can be understood from the following points:
1)The community had previously airdropped, the NFTS that airdropped were clearly whitelisted credentials for subsequent official NFTS, which had to be fulfilled.
2)This is a question between the right of operation and the right of revenue. Since 2022, several DAO projects have emerged, but to this day, most DAO communities operating entirely on token as a single vehicle are not working well. It’s not DAO‘s problem, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a social histological problem:
Whether it’s a traditional partnership、limited liability company、or crypto project, organizations or groups that make a clear distinction between professional operating teams and ordinary participants are more likely to succeed.
Apple owes its success to Jobs’ fierce and intelligent pursuit of products; the success of Huawei depends on its special mechanism of centralized operation and management while decentralized income distribution.
Bitcoin has grown gradually, and not all the holders have been involved in the management. most of the miners just mine the token for profit. they also seldom propose BIP, most development and proposal work are done by BitcoinCore.
The prosperity of ETH cannot be separated from the ongoing existence of a group of contributors led by Vitalik, not all ETH holders.
Therefore, if a community simply uses tokens as the only carrier of operation, it will confuse the intelligence level of the crowd、interest demands、organizational efficiency and other aspects, and it is very easy to lead to the chaebol effect、a person with a large number of tokens to make a decision on any proposal or development direction that is only beneficial to himself. Or, when every currency holder feels like he or she is the boss and has unrestricted right to speak, there is a high probability that the end result is that no one can say anything. Assange DAO community has experienced a lot of chaos in the past half year, many strange and ugly phenomena have occurred. The primary reason is that there is no distinction between the roles of operations and ordinary participants.
Interestingly, I recently read an interview with Vatalik in which he said some similar logic:
《Moving beyond coin voting governance》
So, it is a better way to introduce NFT as a carrier for community development, operation and governance. people who pay attention to investment and Mr. Assange’s deeds can freely choose Justice tokens; who are willing to participate in community operations can use NFT as identity tags, and implement their talent ambitions by letting the community know themselves and entrustment by Justice tokens.

2\ How does buybacks benefit the community? somebody will run away.
If AssangeDAO community wants to provide more support to Mr. Assange and let more people know and pay attention to his deeds, the price of tokens must rise and the market value must grow; this truth has nothing to do with whether he is really supported based on ideal beliefs. In the same way, if the price of BTC or ETH keeps falling, no one will believe that the dreams of distributed finance and distributed technology will succeed.

As for the Treasury buyback, this is essentially a mathematical problem.
We assume that the treasury owns assets worth 1000 US dollars、and the current overall market value of community tokens is $100 now. when the treasury takes out $500 to buy back, even if some people sell tokens,the value of assets owned by the treasury maybe increase to $3000, and the overall market value of community tokens is likely to turn into 2000 US dollars. This is better than the treasury alone owning 1000 dollars in assets, but the market value of community tokens has shrunk for a long time. We should realise that Justice is an asset same as ETH. We should not treat them differently. If the treasury of the community itself cannot accept Justice as the main asset variety, how can others accept it?
As for those who will sell off, don’t worry, there are long-term and short-term investors in any project, who truly recognise and support Mr. Assange’s spirit will always join and stay.

In addition, this proposal, after the introduction of NFT, an incentive pool has been established for NFT holders, and the treasury must have a large number of Justices. current price is very low, which is the right time to buyback.

—Chinese Version----
1\
这并不是DAO本身的问题,就我个人思考的来说,它是一个社会组织学层面的问题。
无论传统的合伙企业型公司、有限责任公司、还是加密领域的项目,只有那些将专业运营团队、普通大众投资者进行明确区分的组织或团体,才更有可能取得成功。
苹果公司的成功,归功于乔布斯强势而睿智对产品的严苛追求;华为公司的成功,取决于它特殊的经营管理权集中但收益分配权分散的机制;
比特币逐步壮大,并不是所有持有比特币的人或者都参与了管理,矿工大多只是逐利挖币,他们几乎很少提出BIP,更多的开发和提案工作,都是BitcoinCore完成。ETH今天的繁荣,离不开始终存在以Vitalik为首的一群贡献者的引领,而并不是所有的ETH持有者。

因此,一个社区项目,如果单纯以代币作为运营、运作、治理的唯一载体,本至上就将人群的智商水平、利益诉求、组织行为效率等等各个方面混淆了,而且非常容易导致财阀效应,拥有大量代币的人很容易因为私人利益诉求而对任意提案、发展方向做出只有利于他个人的决策;或者,当每个持币人都天然觉得自己是老板,有不受限制的话语权的时候,最终的结局大概率是谁都说了不算、谁做任何事提出任何主张都难以实现。阿桑奇DAO社区前面大半年经历了很多混乱的历程,发生了很多令人匪夷所思丑陋的现象,本至上就在于没有区分治理运营和普通参与者两种角色。

有趣的是,我最近读到一篇对Vatalik的采访,他谈到了一些类似的逻辑:
《Moving beyond coin voting governance》
因此,引入NFT作为后续社区发展、运营、治理作为载体,就是比较好的一种方式。关注投资,关注阿桑奇先生事迹的人,可以自由选择Justice代币;愿意参与社区运营的人,可以通过持有NFT来作为身份标识,通过让社区了解自己,得到Justice代币持有者的委托,来实施才华抱负。

2
AssangeDAO社区要能给阿桑奇先生提供更多的支持,让更多的人了解并关注到他本人的事迹,代币价格必须上涨,市值必须壮大;这个道理和是否真正真正基于理想信仰而支持他无关。同样的道理,如果BTC或ETH的价格一直下跌,没有人会相信分布式金融和分布式技术的梦想会成功。

至于国库回购Justice代币,这本质上是一个数学问题。
我们假设,国库拥有价值1000美金的资产,当前社区代币总体市值100美金。当国库拿出500美金回购一部分代币后,就算部分人抛售代币,国库拥有的资产价值也会很快有可能增长为3000美金,社区代币总体市值也很可能变成2000美金。这比国库单纯拥有1000美金资产,但社区代币市值却长期下跌缩水好。 我们要认识到,ETH是资产,Justice也是资产,不应该区别看待它们,如果社区的国库自己都不能接受Justice作为主要资产品种,别人还怎么接受它?
至于那些会抛售离开的人,不用担心、强留也无效;任何一个项目里都有长期投资者和短期投机着,真正认可、支持阿桑奇先生精神的人,总会留在这里。

在本方案中,引入NFT后,对NFT持有者建立了一个激励池,也要求国库必须拥有大量Justice,当前价格很低,正好是回购的合适时机。

5 Likes

If it’s not what I said, then please elaborate on how we will get the initial release of NFT, that’s what you need to explain, not pass the buck to the questioner after you can’t explain it.

I also don’t know what your purpose is? Putting the community at risk of handing over to the CIA to take over!

Finally there is no logical connection between promoting Mr. Assange and raising the price of JUSTICE tokens.

1 Like

Finally there is no logical connection between promoting Mr. Assange and raising the price of JUSTICE。

hi,guys,I have something to say: a powerful “the assange dao" must have valuable tokens-justice. the valuable tokens-justice will also enable “the assange dao” to have greater influence and mobilization in the crypto world. The powerful assange dao can provide more help to Mr Assange and promote Mr. Assange.
To return the value of justice token to a reasonable position is the beginning of the great era of “the assange dao”, in the crypto world. If you want to keep the assange dao out of the crypto world, you can ignore the value of justice tokens.

So,Understanding and establishing the above logic will be conducive to guide the power of crypto world to help Mr Assange.

1 Like

It is very important to formulate the development strategy of the assange dao from a macro perspective and build community consensus. @bZ has done a great job and expects the proposal to be passed and promoted. This is a great start. Let the assange dao work efficiently, face reality and be down-to-earth,I support this roadmap, but the specific implementation still needs to be discussed… just do it。

4 Likes

Everyone expresses their own opinions, which will only lead to an endless internal friction of a project. In particular, there are still many people who have insufficient IQ, insufficient ability, and insufficient cognition. So autonomous organizations are inherently difficult to succeed.

Therefore, the world has always been dominated by elites, with talents leading the way. Maybe we should expect Julian to come out sooner.

2 Likes

Thank you for your introduction. utilizing NFT is a brilliant idea! great concept, really!
but ETH has become too large to make this change. fortunately, Assange DAO still has this chance.
The mathematical conclusion regarding buybacks is interesting, that it will be quite effective in demonstrating to the world the tenacity and willpower of community growth. I have no questions now.
please launch this roadmap quickly.