Friend, AIP-12 has never sought to add new multi-signs and proposers, it seeks to transition to an on-chain governance system.
GTU stands for Governance Transition Unit , and its members are not the successors of multi-signers and proposers. They serve only to screen and validate proposals. If you are in a hurry to realize governance transition, why not try to find technicians who can implement on-chain governance.
你喜欢玩睁眼说瞎话的游戏你自己慢慢玩，Gabriel都已经明确回复支持替换掉那两个早已不活跃的多签人了，你还在这里自欺欺人，装聋作哑，刻意回避现实，我没兴趣陪你玩
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
I clearly pointed out your error in assuming that GTU is the successor to the multi-signers and proposers, and that AIP-12 was designed to accomplish that. In fact it is wrong. Our first priority is to ensure that AIP-12 is completed, not to use the failure to achieve it to achieve your own goals.
If there is a need for the community to select multi-signs then that will be another agenda and we need to establish a multi-signs selection system first rather than making a muddled deal.
I have seen a lot of people in the community appointing multi-signs in a muddled manner without wanting a selection system in place, which adds to the suspicion of these actions.
Remember, Bz is only a temporary multi-signature, if you want to succeed, you must comply with the selection rules and then re-enter the election. That’s what we voted in AIP-4!
I likewise think you have a comprehension problem, you don’t know what I’m against and what I want to establish. I want a system of security and multi-signs that can be held accountable. If you don’t have a problem with comprehension, then it’s that you willfully don’t want communities to be safe. We can’t trust people who can’t be held accountable, much less allow these important positions to be filled without a selection system.
Likewise I think you have a problem with expression and only use inappropriate descriptions and rags to express your excitement. Haven’t learned to express your emotions in civilized language.
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.
E35 is the cancer of the DAO.
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.
I’m just using facts to infer intent, and the fact is that you automatically converted all and only GTU members to multi-signers and proposal authors in your proposal.
Also I didn’t expect a GTU member to make this assumption or interpretation.
Communicating with someone who is easily agitated and unable to express their emotions properly is futile, in fact I can’t see what you are conveying.
It is futile to communicate with someone who has only known how to destroy community building and is keen on playing word games for three years.
Have you seen him come up with a proposal that can be implemented in the past three years? No!
We don’t need people who raise problems, we need people who solve problems.
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?
1 Like
Hi,Zylo @zylo_eth can you post the proposal draft on forum?
1）Since it’s a community consensus and you agree, let Zylo initiate the proposal.
2）At present, the community still has no power, and in governance issues, it is still a family monopoly. Even proposals require you to push forward.
@Gabriel Do you hope this will always be the case? Community governance still shows no progress for three month.