The DAO does not have that choice - right now - it will have to go with the people you have proposed (assuming they’ve all agreed) - just put the tenure period in to the proposal and something about attack mitigation to finalise it and put it up to the GTU for appraisal. It is the first aspect that has to be sorted out.
If in doubt make the tenure period for 6 months only at first. That allows those 5 people to settle in and work through the other proposals and ideas through to December 2025. If its not working then it can be revisited. But it is not worth adding to another delay by getting cold feet. Just forge ahead with a few of the edits. The decentralised platform isn’t an option, without any proposal and/or person driving it.
Yes it does the DAO will eventually have to bite the bullet and hire the expertise it requires like other DAOs do. Its highly unlikely to function as a pure volunteer outlet.
I emphasize again that GTU is a transition period, an abnormal period. The implementation of governance can quickly put the community on the right track. During the transition period, there is no need to update the multi-signatories and proposers, but the transition period cannot be ended without updating the multi-signatories and proposers. Those who oppose the implementation of governance hope that the community will always stay in the transition stage.
It has been almost three and a half years since the establishment of the community, and the community governance has not been implemented. Do we have to wait another three years? Do those who obstruct the progress of the community want to quibble freely here for another three years? Is this how the good time of life is wasted?
You can enjoy it, but everyone is tired of this so-called meaningless free discussion. what a shitty experience.
Democracy! Why didn’t you mention democracy when you were a AssangeDAO Discord Mod and arbitrarily banned and kicked people out?
The community is unable to speak out and has caused a very bad public opinion impact on AssangeDAO’s reputation in the crypto circle.
When you have power, you are dictatorial, and when you don’t have power, you demand democracy. You do whatever is beneficial to you.
How hypocritical and shameless!
Why do you always like to bring the war to others? You are not authorized to target third parties. Didn’t your parents tell you not to do this?
You have offended everyone in the community. No one likes you. You are standing on the opposite side of the community, and everyone in the community is the same.
You can’t have any guidance for the community except destruction.
According to AIP-12,We should fix governance first.
Right now, Zylo is the only one active, but he may not always be available or active in the long term.So to keep things moving and avoid bottlenecks,we should add a few more trusted and active community members as proposers and multisigners
Zylo and Logan are active builders, and you have always been an active destroyer, which makes people feel disgusted. You can object to everything with reason, but you have no solution. You should disappear from this dao, which is the greatest contribution to the dao.
Haha, this clown 35 can be seen everywhere. Whenever the community wants to promote development, this bad guy comes out to sabotage it, playing word games, and destroying the development of the community as his responsibility and the joy of life. He deserves the name of the cancer of the DAO.
In short, he was sabotaging. This kind of person is just as perverted as E. He is hated by the whole community. In the history of DAO, only E and 35 have done this.we can call him E35.
On-chain governance is not a community consensus at this stage. When the community does not have the resources to implement on-chain governance, people use this as an excuse to hinder community development. Such people are really bad guy.
Your speech seems noble, and you expect others to fulfill your wishes. You know that no one can realize your perfect world, but you still insist on it, because you are afraid that every time others’ efforts do not meet your wishes, you think the world will be destroyed. If you are incompetent, please let go of other people’s work, because no one can realize your perfect vision. For your perfection, Assange’s dao has been stopped. Your savior does not exist. Please let this dao move forward step by step. Please do not doubt others’ motives at the beginning. Your suspicion comes from the malice in your heart. Please remember that dao is everyone’s will, not just yours.
Have you donated to Mr. Assange? Do you hold justice tokens? You don’t have any tokens, which is what you said, that is, you don’t even have the right to vote, but you pretend to have made a significant contribution to this dao, but you are hindering the development of the dao all the time.
From telegram to forum, I always see your noise, which makes the whole dao full of negative energy. People who are recognized by everyone are valuable, but you are hated by everyone.
“Friend”,Have some shame! They just want to vomit when they see you, no one is your friend, and you can’t get any support from the community!
What is safety? Would you avoid flying because of reports of a plane crash? Would you avoid riding in a car because of reports of a car accident? How many times have you opposed the development of the DAO on the grounds of safety? It’s safest to stay home and do nothing.please provide an absolutely safe proposal.
If others have problems with their ability to understand, then you are a mentally ill fool, a pervert with no self-esteem, and a piece of trash like E.
First of all, the core goal of AIP-12 is to restore the DAO’s governance system. The proposal clearly states that any community member may initiate a governance proposal draft, followed by a four-week discussion period, after which GTU members review and assess the draft. Everything we’ve done is following this process as outlined in AIP-12 — The proposal doesn’t say “only technical proposals” or “only full on-chain plans.” Please don’t misunderstand — governance proposals are not limited to full on-chain governance solutions. Any governance-related initiative can be proposed.
Second, AIP-12 was created precisely because AIP-4 became dysfunctional and could no longer support the DAO’s needs. So please stop treating AIP-4 like a sacred constitution to block every bit of progress. The DAO has evolved and we need flexible solutions, not rigid clinging to obsolete procedures.
Third, no one is claiming that GTU members are automatically successors to the multisig or proposer roles. But AIP-12 does not prohibit the community from nominating GTU members for these roles either. These are separate matters, so stop conflating them with wordplay. We’re following process and acting transparently.
Fourth, you say you’re against “unclear” multisig appointments. Then let me ask — how were the temporary multisig members appointed in AIP-4? It was simply because they were willing to take responsibility and earned broad community support. We’re doing the same now. Given the current situation, nominating trusted and active members directly is the most practical path forward.
If you truly believe a more formalized selection mechanism is needed, you’re absolutely welcome to write a governance proposal with all your preferred rules and procedures. Or if you believe on-chain governance is the only way, then write that proposal. But until then, please don’t use these semantic arguments to stall progress and maintain a governance vacuum.
If you genuinely want to see the DAO thrive, then participate constructively — help improve proposals, suggest alternatives, or build something new.
I admit this proposal isn’t perfect, but I still firmly believe it offers a practical path forward in the current deadlock the DAO is facing. I hope it can move into the GTU discussion phase so we can improve it together and eventually bring it to Snapshot for a vote.
That’s not true — the GTU members were nominated simply because they represent the broadest consensus in the community. I put them forward as nominees, nothing more.
If they were to be automatically converted into multi-signers or proposers, there would be no need for me to draft and submit a proposal in the first place.
You’re absolutely free to nominate other community members — or even yourself — if you believe there are better candidates. That’s how open governance works — through transparent proposals and community voting, not baseless assumptions.
I agree I think first there needs to be a proposal to remove inactive members and make the new multi sig members updated and permanent.
Some DAO’s use a governance cycle. So that time poor people know if and when they need to be online to look at proposals, give feedback, upload to snapshot etc. Is there a way to make a governance calendar?