Proposal：Ignite the Flame of Truth — The Second Mission of AssangeDAO

General
1

:white_check_mark: Summary

With Julian Assange’s release, AssangeDAO has successfully completed its first mission — a historic demonstration of decentralized power supporting freedom. But the fight for truth is far from over.

This proposal seeks to launch AssangeDAO’s second mission: defending whistleblowers, journalists, and digital rights fighters around the world. We propose the creation of a Truth Flame Fund, starting with 10 ETH from the treasury, to support 3–5 individuals who embody the values Julian stood for — free speech, press freedom, and resistance against political censorship.

These grants will be community-nominated and voted on through an open, transparent process. The DAO will also engage in NFT-based participation rewards and social campaigns to grow its presence and mission globally.

This is not an ending — it’s a new beginning. AssangeDAO will evolve from a symbol of solidarity to an ongoing force for truth.

:pushpin: Proposal Details

1. Launch the “Truth Flame Fund”

  • Allocate 10 ETH from the DAO treasury (held in the Gnosis Safe).
  • Fund 3 to 5 recipients, each capped at 3 ETH.
  • Grants will support:
    • Journalists under persecution,
    • Whistleblowers facing legal/political pressure,
    • Digital rights activists targeted for exposing injustice.

2. Nomination & Selection Process

  • Create a public nomination interface (web or forum-based).
  • Anyone can nominate, but spam protection via:
    • Token stake (e.g., 100K $JUSTICE),
    • DAO badge or prior forum activity.
  • Final recipients selected by Snapshot vote.

3. Community Engagement Incentives

  • All nominators, voters, and social amplifiers receive NFT badges.
  • DAO “badges” or “points” may be designed for future governance privileges (e.g., voting power multipliers, role eligibility).
  • Build a culture of participation, not just observation.

4. Narrative & Communication Strategy

  • Launch with global social campaign hashtags:
    • #TruthIsNotDead, #PostAssangeMission
  • Target crypto media (e.g., The Defiant, Bankless) and activist outlets (e.g., The Intercept, RSF).
  • Reframe AssangeDAO from a one-time initiative to a long-term defender of decentralized truth.

:hammer_and_wrench: Technical & Implementation Plan

Phase Timeline Responsible Party
AIP Vote Week 1 Community
Nomination Page Setup Week 2 Dev/Comms Volunteers
Voting Mechanism (Snapshot) Week 3 GTU/Tech Support
NFT Reward Distribution Week 3–4 NFT Contributor(s)
ETH Disbursement Week 4 Multisig Signers
Social Campaign Launch Week 4+ Outreach Team

All disbursements to be handled via the DAO’s multisig (3/5 threshold).

:balance_scale: Governance Design

  • Snapshot used for all key decisions (recipients, changes to fund structure).
  • Reputation and stake-based filters to prevent abuse of nomination process.
  • NFT and badge system can evolve into non-financial governance layers.

:shield: Attack Mitigation

  • Use token stake (100K $JUSTICE) or forum reputation to limit spam nominations.
  • Voting restricted to token holders only.
  • All treasury disbursements go through Gnosis Safe with transparent records.
  • Participants required to submit minimal verification (e.g., case documentation or press coverage) before receiving funds.

:handshake: Alignment with Julian Assange

This mission directly continues the values Julian Assange fought for — freedom of speech, whistleblower protection, and resistance to censorship. By supporting others walking that same path, the DAO honors Julian not just symbolically, but functionally.

:loudspeaker: Communication & Moderation

  • Create a dedicated forum channel or Discord/Telegram subgroup for nominations.
  • Recruit 2–3 moderators to:
    • Review nominee eligibility,
    • Facilitate discussion threads,
    • Support NFT/reward distribution.
  • Publish transparent timelines, nomination deadlines, and reward tiers.

:white_check_mark: Voting Options

  • :white_check_mark: Yes – Approve the creation of the Truth Flame Fund, allocate 10 ETH from the treasury, and proceed with the described implementation plan.
  • :x: No – Do not launch a second mission or allocate treasury funds at this time.
3 Likes
2

Im glad the idea of an AssangeDAO Award is being considered and not forgotten.

  1. Are we not going to use terms like “prize” or “award” or “medal”? Any of those words add gravitas and add a sense of enduring prestige. Also consistency re hashtags?

  2. Is marketing also aimed at new DAO membership?

  3. Who should be nominated

Each person nominated should be devoted to

  • freedom of speech
  • discovering the truth and informing the public
  • have shown bravery and courage in their lifetime work, and
  • have been resolute in advancing a better future.

What do others think???

1 Like
3

AIP12 has been officially implemented, granting all members the ability to submit proposal drafts on the AssangeDAO forum. However, despite this open opportunity, I remain the only one who has posted a proposal draft so far. Even more concerning is the lack of engagement, with only a handful of members—four or five at most—actively participating in discussions. Why is there such reluctance to contribute proposals or join the conversation? What barriers are preventing our community from fully embracing this chance to shape the DAO’s future?

1 Like
4

Everyone is happy to participate, but they are not used to the forum method. This is the first time in three years that we have seen a valuable proposal. We hope that Assange can enter the governance mode as soon as possible. We have waited too long.

3 Likes
5

After three years of noise and repeated distrust, everyone no longer believes that the governance can be successfully opened this time, and everyone is waiting and watching. If the governance window is really opened as expected this time, many people will join the team.

1 Like
6

Logan you’re doing a brilliant job. As it goes on it becomes apparent that some people don’t see themselves in future roles as they’re not fluent in English, are investors only, enthusiasts only or are non-technical/non-financial/non-marketing. It’s probably how they perceive their job skills. So, they’re shy. This seems to affect all DAOs. Everybody has their day or night job too.

But this does make it difficult. People are uncertain about the workload involved and how to achieve all the things that would give the place a boost.

Two of your proposals should be first voted on IMO.

1. Proposal: Restore Functional Governance --- Maintain Off-Chain Framework, Update Proposers & Multisig Signers

  • This one is almost ready. But include a paragraph reflecting the new Core Mission. This has to be formalized somewhere so just include it as the first paragraph under a heading.

Core Mission
The mission of the AssangeDAO is to champion truth, transparency, justice, and freedom of information worldwide. Inspired by Julian Assange’s legacy, we unite cypherpunks, activists, and advocates to protect whistleblowers, defend press freedom, expose injustice and advance projects and values championed by Assange, through decentralised solidarity and action.

or something similar…

  • Include a paragraph in this proposal under the heading Attack Mitigation.

Suggested……

The multisig will regularly discuss, review and update processes to address evolving threats. The multisig will employ the most secure practical method to coordinate signing events (e.g., encrypted messaging apps or a quick video call) and avoid email for sensitive coordination. Signers will keep their workstations updated with the latest OS patches and robust antivirus software. Signers will use a hardware wallet for signing transactions and ensure private keys are generated on the hardware wallet and never used in a hot wallet. Signers will store mnemonic/seed phrases offline in a secure, physical location (e.g., a safe); never share or digitize them. Signers will document a routine checklist for standardizing the signing process. Signers must manually verify transaction details (e.g., recipient address, amount) before signing and cross-check details against trusted sources to prevent errors or malicious transactions. Any out of -pocket costs associated with the above compliance for each multisig will be paid by the AssangeDAO.

Silke could probably fix this paragraph I’ve just reworded the Polygon information on this topic. I don’t know for sure whether it’s good enough.

  1. Maybe edit this based on any sensible discussion points you’ve read.

https://forum.assangedao.org/t/proposal-request-for-the-return-of-3-681-59-eth-from-wau-holland-foundation-to-the-assangedao-treasury

Those two proposals should proceed first IMO.

After that DAO should select two revenue earning projects and spruik the Assange legacy. Zylo probably would know how much effort is required to get those up and running. Most people probably aren’t up to that level of technical know-how as they.

7

Thank you for recognizing my efforts and for offering constructive feedback. I’m fully aware that the proposal drafts I’ve submitted have many flaws — my abilities are limited, and my perspective is also narrow at times. That’s exactly why I’ve been encouraging more members to join the discussion. We need broader input to make better decisions together.

Regarding the nominations for proposers and multisig signers in this proposal, I understand the concerns raised by SanShiWu — they’re valid and worth considering seriously. I’d also like to ask: would you be willing to accept the nomination? And I sincerely hope to see more candidates step forward as well.

When on-chain governance is stalled, I personally believe that returning to the original governance model is the fastest way to reboot the DAO. Selecting a few people who are willing to take responsibility — as trusted multisig signers and proposal authors — is currently the most effective approach.
It doesn’t matter who gets selected, as long as they are chosen by the clear majority of the community. That’s what legitimacy looks like in a DAO.

8

AIP-12 was created precisely to open this window — to give us a clear and structured process for moving governance forward again.

All we need to do now is follow the process it outlines:
Post proposals
Participate in forum discussions
Over the course of 4 weeks, based on community feedback, we’ll collectively refine ideas and choose which proposals move forward to Snapshot for a vote.

Whether we move toward a new on-chain governance system or continue refining the existing off-chain model — both paths require community input and, in the case of on-chain systems, technical contributions as well.

This is our chance to shape the future of AssangeDAO — but it only works if we participate.

1 Like
9

  1. This matter obviously deviates from the theme of the GTU transition period. Any other actions before the governance cannot be implemented are meaningless.

  2. The DAO that has been drained and bleeding is in financial crisis. What the DAO needs is to be recognized and replenished, not to continue bleeding.
    Some cold-blooded people turn a blind eye to the sense of deprivation of the community, and continue to drain the community and take it for granted.

This is as absurd as a country with a per capita GDP of less than $100 paying pensions to people in developed countries. Let’s first see if the people in our own country are still hungry!

Remember a saying of Confucius：“Be virtuous in obscurity; be benevolent in prominence.”

10

I don’t think they have many flaws. I have no technical background and no marketing or even financial background. I have no idea why technical people aren’t coming forward seeing as many said they had that experience…we need people who have experience in analysing technical and financial proposals.

11

Apart from Amir - the DAO has nobody else proposing and analysing a decentralised model such as tally etc. It has to be put aside and revisted later.

12

Yes, but that does not mean that the existing multi-sig system needs to be changed. Multi-sig and proposal authors are now able to work without problems.

If something works, then why should we risk changing it?

13

Do the multi-signature personnel who have disappeared for several years need to be retained in the dao? The previous multi-signature personnel have not appeared for three years, so the system should be updated to exclude them. Keeping them will only be an unstable factor for the dao. If Assange’s dao is restarted, the newly selected person should be given more authority to operate.

14

One of the proposal authors is a pedophile who doxed the Assange family and undermined the DAO. Last I knew, he hadn’t been removed but if I missed that update I’m happy to be corrected. Even if the model itself doesn’t change for now, he should be removed.

15

The existing multi-sig have not been removed by anyone. While I also support the removal of pedophiles as well as multi-sig with criminal behavior, it seems that a regulation is needed to do these things or the removal will likely be abused.

16

what’s regulation ? what’s abused mean? who abuse?

We don’t need people who talk big but have no solutions. Who do you want to dump these problems on? Where is the perfect governance solution? Why don’t you release a solution that can be implemented? If you don’t have this ability, respecting the community consensus is the best solution at present.

1 Like
17

Consensus? Liquidating the treasury is also the so-called consensus! Ugly consensus!

If there are no rules and regulations then rules and regulations have to be established first, governance is built on rules to be transparent. Multisign manages public funds, that is not your private assets or anyone’s private property, asset management has its own strict norms and is not swayed by your imagination, if you don’t understand you learn instead of getting hysterical here.
Also I would add that people nowadays are looking for crypto projects dev doxxed, which directly affects the participation of the public. If the treasury is in the hands of a few anonymous, then participation is predictable.

18

Please don’t raise your hands and gesture when others are working. It seems that you have reasons to oppose any proposal, but you can’t give a reasonable proposal. You always stand in the role of commander-in-chief to review others, just moving your mouth. No one plans to liquidate the treasury, only you keep repeating this conspiracy theory, making the community panic. Please put aside your various unfounded concerns and let the community develop. According to your thinking, the community will still be unable to carry out anything in another 100 years.

2 Likes
19

You seem to enjoy the fact that Assange Dao remains in its current state of doing nothing. You see huge risks in any change. Please put aside your prejudice and let Assange Dao restart!

20

Calling something “ugly consensus” just because it didn’t go your way is intellectually lazy. DAOs run on process — not personal feelings. If a decision passed via a legitimate vote, that’s called governance. You don’t like it? Mobilize support. Propose something better. But don’t pretend your emotional reaction overrides collective decision-making.

And no — multisig signers are not your servants, and they don’t owe you their private identities. This is crypto. We don’t need to “doxx to prove we care.” What we need are robust systems, transparent on-chain records, and accountability through code — not through forced identity exposure.

Public funds are serious business — agreed. But trust is built through verifiable mechanisms, not fear-mongering about anonymity. If the community wants stronger checks, propose better structures. Otherwise, stop spreading paranoia and start contributing solutions.

Also,How exactly do you define “anonymous”? And more importantly, how do you verify whether an identity is even real? A name, a photo, a LinkedIn profile — all of that can be faked in minutes. So let’s not pretend that “doxxed” automatically means “trustworthy,” or that anonymity means unaccountability.

In crypto, identity is established through reputation, contribution, and transparency — not through government IDs. If your standard for trust is a face and a name, you’re missing the entire point of decentralized systems.
This isn’t about who’s anonymous. It’s about who’s building and who’s just complaining.

2 Likes