You are absolutely right.
Hopefully, the community will have the chance to change by this roadmap, when Julia comes out, he’ll be pleased to see the community expand. there is a fair potential that the community will be led by capable, forward-thinking leaders under the NFT style.
You are absolutely right.
It was in 2022 that DAO really generated waves in the crypto world on a large scale. at present, many DAOs are not developing well. the governance、operation、development and implementation of the initial mission … All are new propositions.
A few more queries.
A. First mint: 6,000 pieces, minted by Justice token holders. - could you explain to a novice - how that process is free to the existing token holders? Who pays it? Cost?
B. The 8% fee - is that the usual market rate?
C. For how long do you envisage to do each of these two steps you suggest?**
1. With the current price relatively low, treasury exchange half of ETH held by the treasury to Justice token into treasury, in order to avoid creating a shock to the market price, it can be executed several times in a period(for example:1 week、2 weeks、1 month).
2. Build an independent smart contract to form an incentive pool, taking on 80% of the Justice as an incentive pool for NFT holders and keeping the remaining 20% in the treasury for community running expenses.
D. Please explain the risk factors of the above? And cost to exchange.
E. Also what do you believe is the cost related to this suggestion -" During the implementation of this program, a number of expenditures and expenses will be involved. If each item needs to be proposed and voted, the efficiency is too low. It is suggested that if the community agrees to this program, the subsequent expenditures will be directly implemented by the treasury and the accounts will be made public in the community."
A, Justice holders only need to pay gas fee,commonly operation.
1) hold Justice token in the wallet is base conditions；
2) NFT is free, because many menbers have donated or already spent to buy Justice, it would be unreasonable to issue NFTS to require them to pay more, which would also make it difficult for NFTS to be issued.
B, It’s universal.
C, The buyback operation itself is simple and can be done instantly if one person manages the treasury wallet. but consider two things:
- The current operator are scattered around the world, time difference factor may lead to transaction failure; 2) share the cost in a balanced way to avoid too much impact on the market.
So, it is possible to consider the convention to be divided into multiple executions. for example, divided into 5 times,1 time/per week, so that the total 5 weeks can be completed.
- Ddepends on the efficiency of the developer.
D, It’s basically no risk. many community projects in the industry do something similar at various stages. for example, ETH Foundation has repeatedly bought back ETH in a bear market and sold it in a bull market, operating in a circular way to enhance its value.
E. This cannot be determined, but it can be published in advance according to the actual expenses, such as specific developer compensation, gas fees for certain operations, server rental… it was volunteered to donate ago.
Thanks to help confirm these detail,I’ll add supplementary notes into the proposal.
Can you give more details what these levels are meant for?
More Justice = More access and priviledges in the DAO?
No, It is very dangerous to give the holder different access & privileges in the DAO based on NFT level alone. a person with a level 3 NFT who try to participate in community work、influence community proposals，he should pass two steps:
Recognized by the basic consensus of the community: He should publicly introduces himself、his understanding of AssangeDAO、his understanding of the Assange Julian incident and his future efforts to the DAO, then Justice holder entrust him on the chain. all the entrustment data is simple、fast and publicly available on the chain in real time.
This is dynamic and has no cycle time limit, which means that anyone interested in working for the DAO can form one of the top 10 members through this step at any time (described in the Governance module). such a mechanism would try to ensure that there would be no shortage of community workers.
Any proposal made by 10-member working group is the normal daily proposal. each proposal is subject to an on-chain vote by NFT-holders (which would be quicker and easier than having all Justice holders vote, because as time goes on there will be more Justice holders than NFT holders ), and to an affirmative vote by a key NFT-holder----key NFT held only by the family.
In this way, after two steps, anyone can join the team serving the DAO, the proposal is more efficient and effective, and the effect of preventing the offensive proposal content to the community from being blocked.
Regarding community management on May 20 PMA has launched a proposal
AIPXX: Hire an Operations Leader (Draft Proposal) . And @rave also mentioned @GabrielShipton In principle has given some in principle approval to recruit an Operations leader. Community development should continue this policy, even if it doesn’t completed because PMA was controversially left.
It is irresponsible to change this established policy by issuing an NFT when the proposal process is already laid out on the official website. The motivation for this is not clear and has not been discussed in any way.
It’s hard to believe that community development isn’t being followed up around Mr. Assange’s recent situation, and that there are no DAO’s activists creating an impact in the community. Instead, it’s consuming everyone’s energy around the technical side of things
Thank you for elaborating the process how you imagine to choose people that would get access and privileges in the DAO, but it still didn’t make it clear to me what the different levels are for and how they are connected with the Justice token. In the draft it looks like the higher the amount of Justice Token is, the higher the level (e.g. the lowest: 50W-100W Justice Level 1, etc.). It looks somehow like a class system, where the highest level is like a premium membership. Did I misinterpret that?
At the beginning, determining the availability of different levels of NFTS according to the amount of token held is only an entry point. Measuring the level and rarity of NFTS is closely related to other modules and is dynamic, not fixed. NFTS are not simply about deciding a person’s authority in the community, but more about acting as a carrier and bridge from the interactive economic system with Justice token. It is recommended to combine other modules to understand the overall framework. in addition, the following projects whom use NFT as part of the function and carrier of project operation can also be referred to:
Regarding community management on May 20 PMA has launched a proposal…
- It is a pity that AIPXX: Hire an Operations Leader (Draft Proposal) has not been voted by the community as a policy to be implemented. If you want to promote it , which will have been voted by the community, it will be executed.In fact, the departure of PMA caused the draft to be gaven up halfway,so It is still a draft.
It’s hard to believe that community development isn’t being followed up around Mr. Assange’s recent situation, and that there are no DAO’s activists creating an impact in the community…
- Obviously, this community is the community of the assange dao, not an ordinary community and organization that supports Mr assange in the traditional sense. This community provides help to Mr assange around the development of the assange dao. Only the development and progress of the assange dao can provide powerful help to Mr assange. The assange dao without governance and value has no help to “free assange”.
hope you can understand point 2.
Your ideas are more helpful to ordinary communities and organizations that support Mr Assange in the traditional sense, and they are great. you can put forward more good suggestions and strategies to help Mr Assange in ordinary communities and organizations that support Mr Assange in the traditional sense.
By the way，at discord, what’s your ID.
You mentioned in a previous post “at risk of handing over to the CIA to take over”,
I think you should specify detailly where the proposal let the CIA handle the DAO when it’s clearly try to providing more protection and planning.
Before this, you asked several questions, which were completely inconsistent with the contents and facts in this proposal, and also replied you. I’m curious what is the intent of your so persistent opposition, the vast majority of people involved in the discussion are in favor of the situation, Is your position really for the better of the DAO?
As for the proposal you mentioned: “AIPXX: Hire an Operations Leader ”
Let me tell you why it couldn’t be implemented:
- Because there is no professional team to maintain and design proposals
- There are no rules in the community that define what is legal and valid proposal
- There is no proper human resource rules in the community. PMA’s is a victim of the rule lack.
- After the announcement for hire marketing leadership was sent out, there were no specific HR rules (role positioning, specific marketing content, marketing plan, compensation and return method), so no one came to apply.
as zian replied in the that post, no rules, everyting will be diffcult to do;
and My proposal is just design to fix the blank.
You mentioned “It is irresponsible”, On the contrary, it is irresponsible and inconsistent for you to propose the use SBT(also is a kind of NFT) as the governance carrier one moment, and then blindly oppose the use of NFT as the governance carrier.
Why the DAO now cant followed up around Mr.Assange’s recent situation?
Because there is nothing in the community: no rules、no good governance mechanism、no product、no market value、no legitimate team member who can represent the DAO and cooperate with other groups around the world… .leads to everything can’t being sustainable, fragmented individual behavior cannot provide sustained impetus for community development.
But this proposal is designed to solve those issues !
Therefore, it is recommended that you really totally read the proposal. its purpose is clearly written in it.
Of course, you are welcome to have better suggestions
PMA’s proposal is inconclusive, but there is no discussion on management and rights to proposals in this “roadmap proposal”, also no conclusion. so why should an inconclusive “proposal” go to the voting process?
In addition, web3 has too many communitys, many excellent projects do not rely on the so-called “market value” to support. It is proven that 99% of the people who destroyed our DAO are attracted by the market sentiment, this important lesson must be remembered, not to repeat. Only the core of the community to do a good job to attract people to join, “market value” will naturally improve, rather than raising the “market value” by other means and then telling people who are attracted to the “market value” how good Assange is.
You have added your own imagination to the hiring of an operations leader, and what you say does not represent the facts and what will happen, but only your personal analysis. The fact is that a professional team managing a DAO is far more beneficial than “someone who stake massive NFTs”.
I wrote my reasons for objecting in several comments above, but you still ask this question, so I am expand on it.
I see a lot of ambiguity in this so-called “roadmap” and no detailed explanation of the program, as well as no mention of any risk, in your reply is no risk or low-risk statements, which is very scary, because there is no analysis of where the risk lies.
In addition, it contains a subversion of the existing system and is not listed separately for discussion, it seems to want to vote like a package, but the management staff and the rights to propose is very important community matters, there is no final decision on those two, but you seem to want to implement some of the “proposal” that is not finalized Discussions. This is not feasible, not the way any organization does things.
SBT is a technological innovation that is fair in its application to voting and management, and does not create plutocratic control issues, NFT has its uses, but you have ignored my proposal for the superiority of SBT. Instead, you questioned my intents. just by opposing you? Then explain why you offer the CIA a gap into management, so what is your intents?
“but there is no discussion on management and rights to proposals in this “roadmap proposal…”
This part has been explained in detail in this road map, this shows that you have not readed this road map completely
According to all your messages above,it is possible that you were completely opposite to the strategy of the road map or you did not understand the strategy of the road map, it is not constructive to oppose blindly.
Please stop your sophistry and start your work for the Assange dao as soon as possible，before doing that, you should hold at least one justice token or NFT and become a formal member of the assange dao. We are looking forward to you.
Many projects are excellent, but they are worthless,
it is a logical contradiction that a very good project has no value. Can you give me an example?
If you were not a formal member of the assange dao, now you should learn more about the assange dao and do the next step instead of raising many objections first
Robbed our money and did nothing?
Evil will be recompensed with evil
i…doubt they robbed you. but this doesn’t seem the relevant thread anyway
I still think the DAO should hire experts. It concerns me that volunteers could be making substantial financial decisions - without acquiring previous experience. I would have loved this roadmap to have started as a project - assigned by an operations lead - and written up by 5-6 people collaboratively. I don’t mean any disrespect to bZ though - as I realize they are working in a vacuum. They’ve put their head up and are trying really hard to fix things. We should seek professional consultation I think before preceding. This should now be up for determination by the consensus unit to decide whether they are willing to alter the treasury forever.
Also there are so many Assange supporters out there - Im not sure how this is going to attract newcomers to invest who have very little or non existent crypto experience to try this out. People are definitely aware of risks in crypto.
I would like to see a genuine Assange NFT collectible being developed for an auction first as a trial run. Something that derives directly from Julian. The DAO seems to have lost input from Julian and Stella.
Thank you, your view is constructive. I think it would be inappropriate and unprofessional to include in this roadmap an overturning of the current system. If there is a need to change the management structure and the proposal process and who is proposing it, this needs to be discussed in advance and then written up in the roadmap based on the results. I also agree that the roadmap should be assigned by an operations lead - and written up by 5-6 people collaboratively.
The NFT is heavily used as a tool of authority in this “roadmap” and this practice still needs to be discussed.
I also think that it’s very important that we attract a broader target audience. There are so many supporters outside, but they’re not all familiar with the cryptoworld. We must develope ways to attract also supporters and activists. This only can be succesful though, if this DAO really delievers Julian’s spirit with authenticity and not just discussions about the token price and benefits for a premium membership with different levels. It may be important, but not the priority number 1, especially not for the supporters that I know on the streets or in social media, which have the priority to help Julian only. There are some good points in the roadmap and also some that I don’t like so much, but it’s ok. We all bring our opinions here and discuss how we can improve something, otherwise we wouldn’t be a community.