Why not the Assange Campaign International, like the transparency report says?
Except for the internal report.
This is only true if you assume there wasn’t a second fiat transaction, and that Wau Holland’s documents were wrong. Which they might have been - but they won’t answer.
True, and undisputed.
Unless you can see a further 1.5% transaction on that report, with a further description, this notion is conjecture as far as your article goes IMO.
Both the preliminary report and the Nov 2024 report clarify it was 3.5%.
Calling their internal documents conjecture is wild.
The reports that “clarify” that it was to a different organization entirely - the “Assange Campaign International”?
But this is all beside the point, which was that WHS has found ways around the “need to seek a grant for a specific project to satisfy a German tax audit”
Assange Dao’s future development direction will still be mainly public welfare. Our original intention remains unchanged. In this way, won’t it be easier to get the remaining funds back?
Wau Holland promised answers before going silent, and I’m not going to report them to the authorities. But again, this is all beside the point, which was that WHS has found ways around the “need to seek a grant for a specific project to satisfy a German tax audit.”
Yes they promised. The bigger issue I really think is why did they continue to pay out large sums for quite a period of time after Julian had been freed (this factors into the remaining funds figure). And whether they used adequate treasury managment for the entire period they were in control. Those answers will only be addressed by the German audit and were raised previously by members of this DAO, by the way.
Presumably WH will be required to display invoices and face potential risks for failure. It was a major responsibility.
Also its worth mentioning that Wau Holland and its staff/lawyers too have received significant threats over the years - so they may have valid reasons for privacy re the public.
Edited to make it clearer.
@Gabriel @SilkeNoa @Logan @zylo_eth @bz404 Just a reminder, this proposal has been issued for four weeks and is currently in the GTU discussion stage. A vote will be initiated on snap on June 25. Logan should be the proposer to initiate the vote on snap, but…, zylo, please help us initiate the proposal
@SilkeNoa @Gabriel @bz404 @zylo_eth @Logan
Is AIP-12 still valid? It’s been over 6 weeks after proposal draft was posted，how long do we have to wait? What was the outcome of the discussion among GTU members? Is there an authority to execute the discussion results? @Gabriel Are you serious or are you fooling the DAO?
Below is some of the correspondence between whs and me over the past few months,which basically sums up whs’s overall position.After whs’s last reply to Harry and me on February 25th, there has been no further response.
Let me take the opportunity to clarify one thing about the remaining ETHs, which
we will deal with in coordination with the tax office and the foundation
supervision:From a moral point of view, the AssangeDAO is the source of the funds for
Julian’s defense, no doubt.But from a legal point of view, the AssangeDAO bought an NFT from PAK, who
became our donor. There is no direct relationship between AssangeDAO and the
WHS, and there is no legal way for us that we could “return” funds to the DAO.
(This missing “direct relationship” was the reason why WHS has been very
reluctant to respond to enquiries coming from the DAO environment.)
> Pak is really anonymous,
We have been in email contact with him and he made it clear that he did not want
to be bothered any further after donating.
Sorry, but I will not get into DAO internal problems. From our (legal)
perspective, Pac is the donor and the DAO is his customer.
I agree. Again, we did not misuse the donation. And, as written in the
transparency report, we will negotiate the use of the remaining funds with our
tax advisor, the Stiftungsaufsicht, and the tax office. Please not that we are
active in politically sensitive projects and therefore, we can just not afford
the slightest incorrect spending of funds or else we will loose our charity
status. We have already experienced such a political intervention in 2010 when
the “cables” got out. Our charity status was recalled in 2010, but we got it
back in 2011.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your own
donation to the DAO. If donators like you would not have exist, Julian Assange
would have wound up in an American “high security” isolation detention facility.
And probably would not live any more. I can recommend Stefania Mauritzi’s latest
book “WikiLeaks and Its Enemies”. In the past, she always has given an accurate
account of what happened.
>Should AssangeDAO’s voice be respected on the ownership of the remaining funds?
From a legal point of view: No. From an ethical point of view: Yes.
Warm regards,
I learned that some states in the U.S. are open to recognizing a DAO as a legal entity. I plan to get in touch by email and other means. If there are workable implementation details, I would apply for funding to set up a DAO as a legal entity in the U.S.
This matter has dragged on for too long. We must speed up the progress immediately.
Questions/Issues/Unknowns
The DAO was a non-legally recognised organisation formed to collect donations for a “good cause.” It was supported by individuals and vested interests - influential friends of Julian and stakeholders. Thousands of participants contributed significant finances.
The donations were used to acquire a collectors’ piece.
A “maxi bid” was initiated by the vested interests without a vote, using all the funds.
That maxi bid amount was undefined until early Feb 2022. Using the term maxi bid is not equivalent to a full “treasury” bid. A confusing communication whilst donations were still accumulating.
Many DAO members expected funds to remain for operational purposes but felt sidelined by the unvoted maxi bid.
Juicebox temporarily held the donated funds, charged a fee, which may have been inflated (5% not 2.5%). An insignificant amount was later returrned to the DAO by Juicebox (JBX tokens/Eth transfer). McKenna had told the community that they had the opinion that the DAO would receive 5%. Did anybody at Juicebox make an oral contract to that effect? This could be significant since the leadership bidding decision may have revolved around the idea that the DAO would gain millions via Juicebox. The DAO should thus collect relevant meeting minutes to see if anything like that was included.
Wau Holland - a a nonprofit now holds significant unspent funds after the mission’s completion.
DAO donors may argue they have a rightful claim to the unspent funds if the donations were made with specific conditions or expectations. At any stage - was their an expectation that the DAO would continue to operate? Half of the multisig leadership have made public statesments that it would continue - Rachel, Amir and Silke and even the Consensus Unit. Those communication should be collected/restored too.
The donors would also need to collect evidence (e.g., of their own donation records, communications) that funds were meant for specific purposes beyond the collectors’ piece, if they wanted to pursue any legal action.
So was there an improper transfer? Both Wau Holland AND the AssangeDAO had almost identical missions for the funds. DAO donors could argue the funds were misdirected.
Was Wau Holland aware of the lack of the DAO donors non-authorisation of the transfer (no vote)? if so, should they have taken the funds, if it was controversial?
The unvoted maxi bid and fund redirection could breach a financial duty if done without transparency or consent.
Unspent funds could legally require funder approval for redirection or return.
Its unlikely that a non-legal entity, such as the DAO could directly sue or hold funds. Only individual donors would be recognised legally I presume.
The lack of a formal legal structure makes it hard to prove that the maxi bid was unauthorised.
So the DAO members could at least ensure that they gather evidence:
Collect their donation records, communications (e.g., emails, texts), or public statements about the DAOs purpose and the intended use of funds.
Document the maxi bid process, including who initiated it and how and when members were consulted. (My recollection is that donations were already been made.) There was a post around the 9th Feb 2022, if I recall on the forum - announcing the decision.
Obtain records from Wau Holland and Juicebox about the funds held, fees charged, and amounts returned or redirected.
Check to see if Wau Holland have made any public filings. Ask for a status update.
Approach Wau Holland to discuss returning a proportion of the funds.
If the DAO does not want to pursue a legal case (too problematic) then present them with a collaboration proposal with Julian and Gabriel’s blessing. That would end this ongoing “war”. It would be the fairest outcome.
(This is why the AssangeDAO should set up a legal entity and commence an appropriate activity according to the original mission ASAP). Also according to HH’s advice, which was sensible.
Where would be the best jurisdiction to set up a legal entity- possibly Germany would be. It is European (which could assist any transfer from the German WH) . So many great ideas have been proposed lately. The AssangeDAO just needs more support from the top IMO to talk to Wau Holland. It could be mavellous.
Excuse the typos. Just notiiced them!!! I think Ive fixed them now.
AS for Wau Holland - that was a conciliatory response IMO. It is unlikely theyve misused the donation as they are heavily regulated. I think they’re wrong about their legal perspective though. At least theyve acknowledged there is an ethical perspective (that is very important for future collaboration efforts which I think is the best way the DAO should proceed now).
Good work for collecting that response sudongpo.
Re US authority - possibly easier to go with a European or an Australian . 1. The Wau Holland group were able to transfer funds to the Australian Campaign without too much drama. 2. It would be easier still for them, to transfer within Germany or a EU jurisdiction.
The DAO should probably be estimating an amount they might wish to request for a suitable project - which fits in with the original mission. if the consensus unit contacted Wau Holland and told them about one of the exciting projects Im sure they would oblige a collaboration. Why would they not?
I found the Juicebox proposal\\https://snapshot.box/#/s:jbdao.eth/proposal/0xb9157d41fc529723c8d4fa260c17ce4a43c5b17703b1bb50c2cf69785014b6d7
Note
“The decision to use all available ETH to purchase the Pak x Assange NFT was based, in part, on the notion that there would be a pathway available to AssangeDAO for the return of the Juicebox fee so AssangeDAO could continue to operate after it had achieved its first objective. There were discussions to this nature early on in the AssangeDAOs creation.”
The minutes to those discussions would be useful.
So the suggested amount - was ETH871.
This proposal was rejected by theJuiceboxDAO.
I have reviewed the relevant laws of the UK, Australia, and Germany. None of these countries expressly require that any surplus funds be returned to donors. Germany only provides that donors may claim a refund if the purpose of the appeal fails. In this case, WH’s mission was successfully completed, and the donor of these funds was pak, not the DAO—this is the basic legal relationship. Therefore, WH has no legal obligation to return the remaining funds to the DAO. Even if WH and pak had a side agreement stating that any surplus must be returned, the funds would go back to pak. However, according to sudongpo’s account, pak voluntarily chose not to pursue recovery of the funds.
Given that, what we can do is: clarify the terms and conditions that applied when pak made the donation. If there are provisions allowing a refund, then persuade pak to take action—and then persuade pak to pass any returned funds on to the DAO.
Another approach, as PeterT suggested, is for the DAO to cooperate with WH to obtain their financial support. This, however, faces challenges: member Emily Dai once proposed this approach in the Chinese community to secure WH’s funding support, but there was no response. It would bar the DAO from engaging in any commercial activities or promoting its token. Nor could the DAO carry out de facto commercial activities under the guise of those purposes; otherwise WH, under regulatory pressure, might decline to disburse funds to the DAO.
However there is also a further issue: even if the DAO is willing to focus exclusively on mission-related work, WH would still face resistance to changing the designated use of the funds, because those funds were earmarked solely for Assange’s freedom.
Using all assets to auction a useless clock NFT is not the will of the community, nor is it the result of a community vote. It is a private and selfish operation by a small number of people. Mr. Assange is now free, and the community’s goal has been achieved. The remaining funds should be returned to the community. The blockchain has records. If the remaining funds are not returned, it can be determined as a fraud. This is the result of illegal operations and should be corrected.
The auction process was illegal and violated the community’s wishes. Park forcibly used all community assets to circumvent legal sanctions. Every commodity has a price, and NFT clocks should also have a price and bid, not all in the community’s assets. No one has this power, not even Park, but they did it. Therefore, the community can claim the remaining assets from Park on the grounds of violation.
Wau Holland cannot return the funds to an individual - so the funds being returned to PAK won’t happen. The mission for the intended purpose of the funds has come to an end. So WH cannot keep the funds either unless they have a project earmarked.
WH cannot transfer those funds to just any of its other projects on its own books either.
The German authorities need to be satisfied that the funds are used properly in line with the original purpose.
Worse case is that Wau Holland loses the funds altogether.
The AssangeDAO has a few future projects in line with the original purpose.
From what I can see, Wau Holland hasn’t got a particular project it can immediately fund. The only competitor is the Courage Foundation (not sure if its Assange stuff is still active though as they only mention seeking a pardon from Biden).
Either way, there is more than enough unspent funds remaining for no one entity to receive all of it.
If funds are up for grabs - the DAO should do what it can do to secure a fair share and participate. Some positivety is needed now. Its the one way for this DAO to makes its presence felt.
Wau Holland do fund privacy projects - that maybe another possible area the DAO could do work upon in the future. The Consensus Unit should talk over what would qualify with them.
In the near future, with support from the Consensus Unit - suitable projects could be brought to life with financial grants from Wau Holland - just like the Australian Assange Campaign received.
The Consensus Unit could ensure that the strict rules required under German Law are adhered to by this DAO. They have the power to veto risk.
This is why the DAO has to create a separate legal entity to make a grant claim. Silke knows how to get creative with these legal undertakings.
The DAO should examine all of the proposals recently written and list those which have the best chance to potentially satisfy the German Authorities.
I totally agree with you, you are very detailed and clear. It’s just that some members of the DAO are still waiting for WH money for commercial promotion, such as payments to market makers and influencer fees. And against DAO money being used to fund whistle blowers, persecuted journalists. I don’t think WH would give funds to a DAO like that.
I think members need to give up some of their ideas and focus on projects in order to be funded financially.
About fiat money
Am 01.01.25 um 10:16 su:
If there are no shady expenses, maybe you can publish all the invoice details,
AssangeDAO may be able to help you with this tedious work.We are not going to publish details of our bookkeeping except to the tax
authorities on request. They are the ones who make sure that the money has been
spent without “shadyness”. To have said it once: We have not misused anything.
Instead, members of the board have shouldered substantial workloads coordinating
8 lawyer teams in 6 countries and various campaign activities, because there has
been nobody else to do that. And these board members have not been compensated
except for expenses.if you convert eth to fiat money in the first place,WHS can get 51m,
You may think so, but the reality is as follows:
It is still unusual to accept legal entities like a foundation for
crypto-currency brokerage. Therefore, each single board member underwent a full
KYC process, which took 3 months in total, before beeing accepted by a broker,
who offered us to convert 150 ETH or € 500,000 (whichever limit was reached
first) per day.Therefore, we decided to always just convert as much as we needed to pay
invoices. There has never been a chance to actually get 52 mio on our bank
account. This was a pure virtual value, valid at the day of donation. Once we
were accredited by the broker, the virtaul value had dropped to 12 mio and
fortunately, the exchange rate improved in the time thereafter.
Advice from WHS regarding being drained of operating funds
Unquestionably, the funneling of the ETHs thru Pak made it possible in the first
place to get it converted into fiat without difficulties. But I disagree that
the NFT isn’t worth anything: The DAO should be able to generate funds by
selling it on the arts market. This needs a respected gallerist/art auctioneer
and a person, who organizes all the information that has “loaded” the NFT with
fame thanks to the wide, international press coverage.But please, do not argue about “51m” of what? Actually, about 16,600 ETHs have
been donated by Pak. Which were indeed worth USD 51mio at the time of donation,
but only USD 12mio 3 months later when we were finally able to convert it into
fiat money, due to the time consuming KYC process.
to Harry cc me:
(cc: goes to su with whom I communicated about the AssangeDAO in the past)
Am 22.02.25 um 16:12 :
Hi!
We still don’t see the final records and non-profit setup, which is worrisome.
As one of the people that did the fundraise via AssangeDAO, we have a large
community of donors to answer to.What do you mean by “final records”? We delivered Transparency Report II and got
our non-profit status confirmed for 2022 by the tax office last month. This was
the year when expenditures for Julian’s defense started to skyrocket. The tax
office accepted 2022 after reviewing about 10 of the largest invoices. In
essence: they accepted the support of Julian’s defense as being of public interest.Eventually, the tax office is the auditor of our spending. As far as “supporting
individuals” = “embezzling funds” is concerned: they are very sensitive.
