Isn’t it ugly to liquidate the treasury? Do you think it’s honorable?
This is not a constructive discussion on your part. You are still pushing your agenda and ignoring the real risks. Decentralization is not anonymity, and if you still endorse decentralization, then why not fix the problem once and for all and leave some bugs in place. i’ve made my thoughts obvious - no need to change the multi-signature system! Why assume something is wrong with the system and then somehow have someone come up with a solution?
Also you’re emphasizing now that you’re building, so forget about all the complaints you’ve had over the years?
Please distinguish that I am objecting, not complaining!
So you don’t think any of your opinions are allowed to be opposed by people? So why do you and others always maintain opposing opinions?
Yes, you have the right to object, so let the proposal be put to a vote and let the community decide. This is the fairest way to let the community decide the direction of development without affecting Mr. Assange’s reputation. Please do not be stubborn about your own opinions, because this is a matter for the community, not just you. Please respect the development of the community.
When I raised some concerns, you, as the porposer, did not answer the question of how to avoid those risks in order to minimize people’s concerns. Instead, you throw the questions at the person who is asking. This is very irresponsible behavior!
If a proposition is voted on and passed, whatever it is, that’s what represents people’s choice. At that point in time I won’t make any further comments. But this is still the time to discuss the proposal as well as the time to include a variety of opinions, and it’s important for me to offer a different point of view! Please respect the community proposal process and don’t try to stop others from speaking.
What exactly constitutes a “treasury liquidation”? How do you define it? These are your personal interpretations, and you shouldn’t impose them as absolute truths on others.
Let’s be clear: our collective goal is to revive a stalled DAO and restore its credibility. The current reality is that the DAO’s governance is flawed — proposers and multisig signers are inactive. After community discussion, two potential solutions have emerged:
Upgrade to full on-chain governance.
Refresh the list of proposers and multisig signers.
But on-chain governance requires technical implementation, and no one in the community is currently able or available to carry that out. That’s why I proposed updating the proposer and multisig roles as a practical first step to get things moving again.
Yet you continuously reject this idea, citing “anonymity” and “safety concerns” — without clearly defining what you mean by anonymity, or offering any constructive alternative. That’s not how responsible governance works; that’s intentionally obstructing progress under the guise of caution.
So let me ask you: what exactly do you mean by ‘anonymity’? Is everyone who doesn’t share your opinion suddenly anonymous and unsafe?
If you think my proposal is incomplete, that’s totally fair — oppose it, suggest improvements, start a discussion. But clinging to a vague accusation like “it’s unsafe” without engaging in solutions — and refusing all change — is not honest governance. That’s how communities stagnate.
People grow and learn. I used to misunderstand Gabriel — I thought that after the fundraising, he had abandoned the community or even stood in the way of its development. But after seeing the work he has done for the DAO, I’ve come to understand that my assumptions were wrong. Naturally, I want to correct my past misjudgments and foolish actions. At this point, my only goal is to focus on rebuilding and contributing constructively.
You’re free to oppose my nomination, or to nominate other candidates for proposer or multisig roles. That’s how governance should work.
But opposing any changes solely on the basis that adding new multisig signers or proposers is “unsafe” because of anonymity is an overly rigid and unconvincing argument. It lacks nuance and fails to address the core governance issues we’re facing. At this point, it feels more like an excuse to resist progress than a genuine concern for security.
As you say, it’s your personal interpretation that you then impose on others. In response you presently put a good spin on what you said!
It seems to me that multiple signatures are not inactive, otherwise how did AIP-12 go to a vote? So I’m not going to propose any “solutions” based on hypothetical questions. Also I have the right to question, but I don’t necessarily need to propose an alternative.
AIP-4 dictates how multiple signatures are selected, so anonymity and security are not the only reasons I’m against it.
I’m curious about another member’s obvious opposition to your proposal and you don’t accuse him of blocking community development. And yet there was a strong resistance to my objections. It’s intriguing!
He hasn’t come up with a solution for that, either! Why is that?
Why not accuse him of complaining? Why isn’t it treated fairly?
It’s misleading to say the multisig is “not inactive” simply because AIP-12 went to a vote. That proposal only made it through thanks to the persistent efforts of a few active individuals pushing against the tide of stagnation. A single proposal making it to Snapshot does not mean the governance system is functioning as intended—especially when day-to-day operations and follow-up actions remain paralyzed due to the inactivity of key roles like proposers and multisig signers.
You say you don’t want to propose solutions based on “hypothetical questions”—but these aren’t hypotheticals. The lack of execution, the bottlenecks, and the communication gaps are real, and they’ve been holding the DAO back for over two year. A healthy community doesn’t just question for the sake of questioning; it contributes, refines, and participates in solving problems. If everyone chooses to point out flaws without offering any path forward, then nothing will ever move.
Of course, questioning is your right—but actively blocking progress while refusing to engage in solutions is not the same as healthy governance.
It seems I overlooked that point. I will review AIP-4 and use it as a reference to improve this proposal
I can choose to talk or not talk about my solution. It’s up to me, not some preaching. If some issues cannot be resolved, shelving them is the best solution. If you would like me to work with you on revising your proposal then please be polite and invite. But in any case I don’t think the multi-signature system is out of order, any add and delete that should follow the rules.
Also I hope you take these genuine complaints of mine seriously:
The reason your objections were met with resistance is not because they exist. You continue to reject actionable proposals while offering no viable alternative and dismiss the urgency of the DAO’s dysfunction as if it were hypothetical.
As for the other member you mentioned—his opposition didn’t involve stonewalling every potential fix
This isn’t about treating people unfairly. If your objections are aimed at stopping movement altogether, while others are working toward solving real problems, then naturally the community will respond differently.
Let’s be clear: participating in DAO governance is not a matter of personal whim. If you’re engaging in public debate on a proposal, especially one addressing a very real and visible problem—like inactive multi-sig signers or paralyzed governance—then claiming “I can choose not to offer a solution” is a cop-out. Shelving issues is not a solution. That’s how DAOs die: not from attacks, but from inaction disguised as caution.
You say the multi-sig system isn’t broken. Based on what? Silence? Inactivity? If it’s not broken, then prove it with transparent activity and responsibility. Otherwise, saying “everything is fine” without evidence only protects the status quo—not the community.
And your comment about needing an invitation to collaborate? That’s not how decentralized systems work.If you care about this DAO, step up. Critique, improve—but don’t hide behind polite formalities while deflecting every real issue.
If you’re not part of the solution, then at least don’t stand in the way of those who are trying to fix what’s broken.
Let’s stop pretending that inaction is integrity. It’s not.
So did my objection blocking the fix? I asked for no more anonymity and for the election to be held according to the rules, but you refused to fix it. That’s the problem. That’s your problem on me!
And I don’t know where you’re accusing me of getting in the way of people trying to fix it from? There is no basis for it. What would happen if you followed my advice to follow the election rules to decide, as well as de-anonymize? Are you using these suggestions as justification for obstruction? If not, then what? You always try to put yourself on the moral high ground but realistically ignore the real risks.
Also people are questioning you because they want to provoke thought and get more people thinking and involved. That’s the point of it all. As for the solutions you want, leave it to those thinking about the solutions, it’s not about the people who are questioning them.
You can also be less accusatory and choose polite dialog to move forward, otherwise you are the one who hindering the overall progress of the work.
In your proposal, bz, zylo, and silke are all original multi-sigs. So are you referring to them being inactive and will lead to crippling operations? If yes, then why nominate them? If not, then why say multi-sigs are inactive?
You claim you’re not obstructing, but your actions speak louder than your words. Every time the community proposes a tangible step forward—like updating inactive multisig signers or fixing governance—you respond with absolutist objections wrapped in vague principles. “No anonymity,” “follow the rules”
What exactly do you mean by “anonymity”? Can you clearly define it in this context? Are you referring to someone not revealing their legal identity, or simply using a pseudonym on-chain or in the forum?
And more importantly—how do you distinguish between real anonymity and fake anonymity? What is your standard for making that judgment?
People who ask questions aren’t automatically deep thinkers. It’s not the questioning that matters—it’s the will to build.
If you’re serious about decentralization and governance, then help improve the system
You’re misunderstanding the reasoning behind my nominations.
Yes, BZ, Zylo, and Silke are original multi-sigs. But their activity has been inconsistent—sometimes responsive, sometimes completely absent for weeks or even months. The fact that the threshold is three means that when even one or two are inactive at the same time, DAO operations can come to a halt. Can you guarantee they will always be available when needed? Because I can’t—and experience shows they haven’t been.
That’s exactly why I support adding new multi-sig members and proposal authors—to create resilience. Redundancy is not a flaw in governance, it’s a feature. It ensures the system keeps working when individuals get busy or disengaged.
And let me ask you this: if you insist that no change is necessary, are you implying that governance over the past three years has been functioning properly?
Because I don’t think anyone seriously believes that. The DAO has been dormant, decisions have been stalled, and important initiatives—like treasury management and community engagement—have gone nowhere. If you think that is acceptable governance, then we clearly have different definitions of what a DAO should be.
We have been seeking a governance framework since 2022. We voted and passed a series of resolutions, but that didn’t complete the governance. One of the outstanding issues is the selection rule on multi-sigs. But now there is a sudden desire to bypass this pending matter and turn to selection without adopting the rules, which is not desirable, given that the rules for multi-sigs selection were voted upon. And both anonymous and well known people serving as multi-signs were matters that were being discussed at that point in time, not issues that suddenly came up.
Just because DAO hasn’t moved in a long time doesn’t mean it’s disconnected from the previous line. You may not have been part of that discussion, but the continuity of governance is something that needs to be preserved, and even now the voices of the past should be heard and the voting choices of the time honored.
The fact that governance has not been completed in the past few years is not due to the problem of multiple signatures and proposers, but rather the lack of a proposal on governance. In the Chinese community, which claims to have a large number of members, there is also not a single person who is concerned about the improvement of governance, and not a single person who has made a proposal about governance. So I don’t really see how what you call stagnant development relates to multi-signs and proposers not being active.
The definition of anonymity is not for me to define unilaterally, it can be decided through common sense and community discussion. I just give my thought and it will ultimately done by everyone, you can open this discussion and then I will participate and give my understanding.
You claim that the issue is not about inactive proposers and multi-sigs, but the fact is: the lack of active governance execution stems directly from their inactivity. The DAO has been stagnant not because we forgot to write rules, but because those who were supposed to act on them were absent. You can’t expect a DAO to function if signatures don’t sign and proposers don’t propose.
Regarding continuity—yes, continuity matters. But honoring the past doesn’t mean remaining hostage to it. The community has the right to evolve and adapt when systems aren’t working. If we are to preserve the intent of earlier votes, we must also uphold their spirit—which is to build a functional and accountable DAO. That includes re-evaluating who holds power when the current structure leads to paralysis.
And on the issue of anonymity: you claim you don’t define it, yet you consistently invoke it to oppose proposals—without ever clearly explaining what constitutes “anonymous” or why it’s a problem. If you believe anonymity is a risk, then offer constructive definitions and criteria, and let the community decide, as you said. But until then, using “anonymity” as a vague excuse to block change only hinders progress.
Let’s be honest: governance requires participation, not obstruction masked as tradition. You are of course welcome to raise concerns, but when concerns are repeatedly used to stop action without offering viable alternatives, it becomes a form of passive resistance—not democratic discourse.
Anonymous is anonymous, it is a noun. We can go through the Oxford Dictionary to get its meaning, so I said I wouldn’t define it unilaterally. You can quote the meaning and scope of its words to refute me instead of demanding what I should do.
My reasons for objecting to the proposal on multi-sigs are clear enough, but you consistently consider objections as obstruction. Is my objection an impossible task?
You think I’m blocking you by opposing you, haven’t you thought about the need to improve your proposal? Don’t you seek to improve it instead of defining others?
In my opinion there is something that needs to be improved that is to improve the selection rules first. Otherwise voting that will bring a lot of risk.
If we’re going to invoke the Oxford Dictionary to define “anonymous,” then let’s be accurate: “not identified by name; of unknown name.” But in the context of DAO governance, this isn’t about technical semantics. The real question is whether a person is accountable, reachable, and engaged—not just whether they have a visible name. Hiding behind a dictionary definition while ignoring the practical implications for decentralized governance is evasive, not clarifying.
You claim your objections are not obstruction—but what are they, then, when they come with no alternative path, no constructive edits, and no willingness to engage in actual problem-solving? You repeat the same objections while rejecting every attempt at progress. That’s not discussion; it’s deadlock.
You also suggest I should “improve my proposal.” I’ve tried. I’ve invited input, responded to questions, and made revisions.
Opposition is part of governance—but so is responsibility. You can’t demand the right to object without also taking responsibility for contributing to a solution. If your goal is really to improve the proposal, then engage in good faith. Otherwise, call it what it is: obstruction dressed up as caution.