I wish to express my consideration of de-anonymization with the simple understanding that law enforcement can quickly find someone to arrest when a multi-signatory commits a criminal act against a DAO. That’s what binds stewards of public funds.
Also why are others being asked to provide improvements to a proposal that clearly lacks the conditions for implementation? There is no basis for the emergence of such a proposal, so why continue to accuse others of doing something ridiculous. As I said before, another member opposes your proposal, so why don’t you accuse him of not offering ideas for improvement?
Sometimes setting aside is the best thing to do, and you don’t have to push this agenda based on your personal will. My objection is not obstruction, it is a demand for compliance and de-risking. I don’t need to explain further if you’re deep in a semantic quagmire.
Also, I’m curious about the fact that in your ideology, inactive multi-signs in DAO could cause stagnation, and you also think that some of them bz, zylo, and silke have sometimes completely absent. So why keep what you consider inactive multi-signs in your proposal?
Also, paradoxically you say in your proposal that they are active multi-signs. What exactly went wrong with that?
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.
I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. First of all, I quoted you exactly, you think they are causing actual delays, but you want to keep five multisignatures. That’s easy, remove the multi-signs you consider inactive among them and add new members up to five.
This is just a discussion based on your ideology.
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.
If you could talk like a man, I would have a conversation with you. Like you, what can you say that is nutritious other than denigrating and insulting? You think this is straight talk? No, it’s you making a fool of yourself!
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.
If you say I attacked someone, please show proof. Otherwise don’t start rumors. Rather, I’ve been attacked here for no reason at all just because I opposed one of Logan’s many proposals, but please don’t forget that I supported the rest of his proposals. @sudongpo similarly opposed one of Logan’s proposals, yet no one has ever made that accusation against him.
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.