The community governance of PeopleDAO is undoubtedly successful. The community has established a governance system centered on coin holders based on a common concept. PeopleDAO has never betrayed the community, and the juicebox contract locks 5113eth for donors to withdraw.
However, how can AssangeDAO, who has no governance at all, have the face to mock others? Having betrayed the community, there has been no governance system for more than three years, and the remaining donations cannot be retrieved. The so-called success comes at the cost of sacrificing the community. Assange’s supporters have not been rewarded, both financially and emotionally, and they have lost.
Well, in AIP4 it has been clarified how we will elect for the Multisig. Multisig election are subject to the following conditions: “Conditions are including but not limited to: a clear determination of the duration of the Multisig’s Conditions are including but not limited to: a clear determination of the duration of the Multisig’s term of office, the qualifications and restrictions required to become a Multisig, the rights and obligations of the Multisig, the number of Multisigs, and the existence of suitable and willing candidates. and the existence of suitable and willing candidates for Multisig.” So the procedure should be necessary to complete the election conditions first.
Adding multi-signature members at this point would necessarily violate the established rules. I think it’s not just me, and there are many more who are witnessing whether DAO will operate in violation of the rules.
please don’t opposing just for the sake of it. I’m simply offering what I believe is the most practical solution based on the current state of the community. Your objection seems to boil down to the belief that I’m not qualified — and that’s fine.
If you have someone more suitable in mind — such as some “well-known figure” with a solid background who is actually willing to take on the responsibility of being a multisig signer — then by all means, put their name forward. Let’s discuss it openly and choose the most appropriate person together.
To be honest,If @PeterT is genuinely willing , I’m more than happy to withdraw my own name and support him instead.
My goal is simple: I just want to see this community finally achieve functional and accountable governance. Nothing more.
I have no preconceived notions about you personally, and I honestly admire your efforts, you do great work. But my concerns are not unfounded, all anonymous multi-signing is a real risk, and the more we have the greater the risk.
It seems to me the community needs to thrive just by reducing the attacks on DAO history and being brave enough to recognize the facts. A consensus on this will naturally lead to people joining.
I think this proposal could be better if did define tenure, the continued status of the Consensus Unit to veto, whether anybody on the multisig has more rights than others (I would feel its safer if an expert crypto lawyer oversees the process and had that extra security role), how many multisigs - so 5 (is it best practice - IDK?).
I like the suggestion that multisigs contact each via video call. That was an issue with E.
If GS is a multi sig too - does he have the right level of at home security. Only saying this because GS is so well known and could be targetted - so should he be included??? Or could his veto right mean that he does not need to be a multisig? ??? Presumably Silke who worked at Gnosis Safe is fully across security responsibilities. I think the lawyer should have the role of co ordinator.
During the GTU period, we focused on only two things: governance implementation and the return of WHS funds. Anyone who hinders the implementation of these two things is an enemy of the community.
Regarding the introduction of well-known figures, we still took the path of community governance before the Assange family publicly released the news. If the GTU candidates of community consensus cannot naturally become multi-signers and proposers, then the transition period of GTU will fail.
Do those who continue to provoke conspiracy theories and various risks of ethnic confrontation have a consensus that can be implemented? Does conspiracy thinking violate the principle of objective rationality?
We need people who can solve problems. Those who oppose the greatest consensus should initiate proposals and provide candidates. We don’t need people who talk big.
Everyone knows the problem, but no one is doing it. Will their ideas be different from a year later? Will they still repeat the same ideas here a year later? That’s enough.
Do it now, right now, on the basis of the greatest consensus, and then establish a term system and accountability system. Don’t expect a perfect solution. Doing it step by step is the best solution.
I agree very much with sudongpo’s point of view. We must take action first, and then slowly correct problems when they arise. If we continue to discuss the issue for 10 years and remain at the same point without any progress, Assange will only disappear.
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.
Why are you keen on attacking people who disagree with you? If you have a valuable opinion, express it. You can attack other people’s viewpoints, but it seems like you’re all about loathing people who present different viewpoints.
The fact that we each express our own opinions does not prevent the other from surviving. Offensive behavior is not the mark of a civilized person! Attacks on individuals don’t get the attention of others either.
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!
I carefully follow the moderation rules for users who violate community regulations, and every user I deal with is publicized in the MOD channel. It’s transparent. Democracy is not about being free to use cyber violence or to trample on community rules. If you don’t understand it, I suggest you learn it. Of course, if you think that a social platform like BZ’s private telegram channel that allows its members to insult, denigrate, and rumor about other people, including the consensus unit, represents “democracy”, then I have no words for you. But just to remind you, the slightest disrespect to BZ on that telegram will get you banned.
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.
