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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your reasoning contradicts itself. On one hand, you accuse me of calling bz, zylo, and Silke “inactive,” and then you question why I would nominate them. On the other hand, you claim my proposal paradoxically describes them as “active.” So which is it?
Let’s clarify: I never said they were completely inactive. I said their activity is inconsistent—sometimes responsive, sometimes absent—and that unpredictability is precisely the issue. A DAO that relies on exactly three out of three signatures cannot afford periods of silence from any of them. The fact that signatures occasionally go through doesn’t mean the system is healthy—it just means it’s barely functioning, and always at risk of gridlock.
That’s why I propose expanding the multi-sig set. Not because I believe these individuals are bad actors or should be removed, but because resilience requires redundancy. If three out of five signers are active, things can still move. But if three out of three are needed every time, and one goes dark, the DAO freezes. And that’s exactly what’s been happening.
So no, there’s no paradox. It’s a pragmatic assessment: recognizing contributions where due, while also designing for reliability. The bigger paradox is your attempt to defend an obviously fragile setup by nitpicking semantics, while ignoring the real bottlenecks that have paralyzed this DAO for years.
This discussion ends here. I won’t be responding to you any further regarding this proposal.
Shut up, don’t bring me into your fight with Logan.
35 is a personality disorder patient like E. A normal person would seek recognition from the crowd, arguing and quarreling with others all day long in a place that has not been recognized for three years, and taking pleasure in it. Amir Gabriel and none of us have this reaction, except for him who has been doing this for three years.
Disguised as a supporter of Assange, taking pleasure in causing arguments and disrupting community development, appearing unique and unconventional to attract attention from others. Over the past three years, do you think about any contribution this person has made to the community? No, he has been doing the same thing as E.
Whenever there is any progress in the community, he always jumps out to exaggerate various risks, intimidate the community, and then stir up various things.
I have always said that he is a community cancer, and this person here will cause constant arguments in the community.
I was talking about problem A but you suddenly jumped to problem B which is not related to problem A. When we were talking about governance, why did you suddenly jump to other issues? You often change concepts and play word games. Did you get kicked in the head by a donkey? Go to the psychiatric department when you have time.
You really disgust everyone. You attack everyone indiscriminately in the community. You claim to be doing good for Assange, but you block the development of the community everywhere. I donated $150,000 for Mr. Assange’s freedom and got the corresponding tokens, but what did you do for Mr. Assange? You seem to have made no contribution except to get more people to attack the Assange family.
Do you want to provoke another dispute? Do you want them to argue with me too? What is the intention behind it? The motive is impure!
You are extremely hypocritical, pretending to be confused with clarity. Do you really not know how much harm you have done to the community in the past three years? You have become a rat crossing the street, everyone is shouting at you, do you really not understand?
I am 40% in favor of Logan’s proposal. The community has not had any officially announced activities for too long, which has a positive impact on community promotion. However, one should have a clear viewpoint and not both support and oppose it. Therefore, I reluctantly chose to oppose it and leave the rest to the community to vote on.
I have always advocated for the interests of the community, which is my character and community status. They understand my principles and viewpoints, so they will not argue with me on details. We are all normal members of building communities.
Why do people respect Zylo? People who build communities can discuss it normally, but for those who have malicious intentions towards the community, everyone feels the same feeling as a perverted E. you will not receive any support from us.
Reminder again: Do not try to lure others to attack me, you may be disappointed.
How is E a proposal author. He is not on the multisig. He has not been around for years and in fact was kicked out of the community before it was revealed he was a bad person.
I didn’t say he was on the multisig - I said he was a proposal author. This is easily confirmed as the DAO advertised publicly. The First Step Toward AssangeDAO Governance identifies E as one of the proposal authors, with 0xB62D7052F3E0Deb75a2d91A3526cA0A5934537df belonging to him.
Until relatively recently, the current proposal authors were publicly viewable to everyone, I believe via Snapshot. That no longer seems to be the case, so it’s unclear whether he was removed or not, but since I’m not aware of him being removed (and have repeatedly brought it up) I assumed he wasn’t but asked to be corrected if I was mistaken.
That is debatable as it was clear he was a bad person before this, but he remained a proposal author after his departure from the DAO. If I’m mistaken, the blockchain will surely show the date he was removed and it will be a simple matter for you to demonstrate this.