Questions the DAO Community must answer after the new multisigs are added

General
1

Important questions the DAO Community must answer after the new multisigs are added in ~3 weeks

Does the DAO want to continue?

Does the DAO want to sell the Pak x Assange ‘Clock’ NFT?

Does the DAO want to allow JUSTICE holders to ‘cash out’ it’s JUSTICE for the funds held in the treasury?

Does the DAO want to rebrand/rename or remain AssangeDAO?

What is the new Mission Statement of the DAO?

What are the new Goals of the DAO?

What are the ‘Core Values’ of the DAO?

Should the DAO add further ‘Official Positions’ for it’s members?

Does the DAO want to stake some of it’s Eth?

Does the DAO want to use some of it’s Eth for Justice liquidity?

Edit: Further questions

What is the ‘Vision’ of the DAO?

Should the DAO move to Tally for fully on-chain governance?

What are some of the short term and long term goals of the DAO?

The DAO voted for ‘Request for the Return of 3,681.59 ETH from Wau Holland Foundation / Seek the return of remaining treasury funds held by WHF to AssangeDAO.’ but as I understand Wau Holland is not able to return the funds to the DAO - so how does the DAO move on from this? Do we write an open letter politely asking for collaboration and/or return of some of the Eth anyways even though it may result in the DAO being at a forever standstill?

What are the most important projects the DAO must start? And can the DAO use some of it’s Eth in the treasury to fund development and audits of those projects (example: Blockchain Apps/dapps)

Some of these points may be irrelevant, for example if the community decides it no longer wants to continue the DAO and sell the Clock NFT and return all Treasury funds to the DAO holders.

2

I think an additional question needs to be asked: Does DAO need to refund donors at juicebox?

3

As in refund the donors who accidentally burnt their Justice tokens with Justice tokens from the Treasury?

4

Yes, they deserve justice. But usually refunding the ETH they donated

5

I agree that if someone accidentally burnt their ‘JUSTICE’ tokens - the DAO treasury should refund them the JUSTICE tokens. Do we have a list somewhere? It would have to be done manually by the Multisigs using the Safe app (Treasury) to send JUSTICE tokens from the Treasury to all those who accidentally burnt their JUSTICE. (After it gets voted on)

If we want to refund people ETH it would have to be equal for all JUSTICE holders

Example: Vote on it, return accidentally burnt Justice with Justice from the treasury, Sell the NFT, use the complete remaining treasury to allow people to convert their JUSTICE to Eth

From what I understand and (I have had no contact about this with Wau Holland), Wau Holland is unable to return any of the eth Pak donated to them to the DAO.

So if the community wants to cash in their JUSTICE for ETH it would be
198 Eth total + whatever we sell the Pak X Assange Clock NFT for.

Example minimum returned if we close the DAO (without selling the NFT):

10,000 JUSTICE equals approximately 0.00011768157020551281 ETH.
1,000,000 JUSTICE equals approximately 0.01176815702055128 ETH.

Example if we sold the Pak X Assange Clock NFT for 4242 Eth (I believe that was the second highest Bid by Kraken CEO Jesse Powell) - that would give the Treasury a total of ~4300 Eth (Assuming listing/selling fees).

10,000 JUSTICE could potentially equal approximately 0.0025451216823 ETH.
1,000,000 JUSTICE could potentially equal approximately 0.25451216823 ETH.

This is in my opinion the best case scenario if we wanted to sell the NFT and close the DAO while returning everything we had to JUSTICE holders.

However if the DAO continues and grows over 5-10 years I think that the JUSTICE token could be worth much more in 10 years if the DAO is successful in giving it value and utility and helping advance the DAOs mission and goals.

1 Like
6

我同意您的想法，但是阿桑奇家族是怎么看待这个dao的呢？14个月了也不见阿桑奇先生对于dao有什么态度和想法！

7

It is my hope that Mr. Assange gets involved with the DAO but I am not sure as he seems very quiet and seems to be not involved with very much since his release. I don’t have the answer to this.

8

@Gabriel 所以这个问题还得您来解答，社区的走向和未来掌握在您的手上，希望阿桑奇家族可以给个明确的说法。大家一直都在努力，很可惜现在看不到未来。每个提案您也不反对但是也不太积极，这对社区人员是不公平的。

1 Like
9

If the DAO continues, I think the new goal / mission should be focused on the pardon of Mr. Assange, even though it could have multiple goals at the same time, if others wish so. In my opinion, it’s more efficient to focus on one single thing, rather than XX things. Yes, Julian is free, but only because he plead guilty of journalism. Until this is not resolved, Journalists are still at risk. Julian lost so many years of his life without freedom. I think he should have all the time in the world now with his kids and recover of this nightmare.

I would like to know what’s the goal / mission of Wau Holland now? Will they use it to support a pardon for Julian? If a return would not be possible, than at least they could use it for the purpose to push for a pardon, or? I guess, the NFT does serve no purpose if we can’t help Julian with it, so maybe selling it in order to take actions could be a good idea, or if the DAO doesn’t wish to continue, that the Treasury funds like you say, return to the DAO holders. I could imagine many different campaigns, ideas but for these, a DAO would not be a necessity, even though it could be interesting, if there is a strong fundament with common goals, values and laser-sharp focus.

2 Likes
10

Yes, I think the new mission should include Assange’s continued freedom & Pardon.

DAOs and other organizations typically have Mission Statements, Vision Statements, Goals, and Values

Typical Statements for DAOs and Organizations (example not directly AssangeDAO related)

  1. Mission Statement
  • Defines the organization’s purpose and what it does.
  • Answers: “Why do we exist?” and “What do we aim to achieve?”
  • Example (for a DAO): “To empower decentralized governance by enabling transparent, community-driven decision-making on blockchain.”
  1. Vision Statement
  • Describes the long-term aspiration or future state the organization aims to achieve.
  • Answers: “Where are we going?”
  • Example: “A world where decentralized communities thrive, free from centralized control.”
  1. Goals (or Objectives)
  • Specific, measurable outcomes the organization works toward to fulfill its mission.
  • Often broken into short-term and long-term goals.
  • Example: “Onboard 10,000 active DAO members within two years.”
  1. Values (or Principles)
  • Core beliefs or ethical guidelines that shape the organization’s culture and decision-making.
  • Answers: “What do we stand for?”
  • Example: “Transparency, inclusivity, and decentralization.”

Our current Mission Statement is:

Our Mission

The mission of the AssangeDAO is to inspire a powerful solidarity network and fight for the freedom of Julian Assange.

What is AssangeDAO’s Mission?

AssangeDAO’s primary mission is to free Julian Assange. As cypherpunks, we aim to liberate him from the legacy justice system through decentralised efforts.

I believe now AssangeDAO has completed it’s primary mission and must vote on a new mission - perhaps ‘fight for the continued freedom and pardon of Julian Assange’ is good but perhaps that is too narrow of scope.

For Wau Holland, we must remember that the DAO raised contributions and purchased the NFT from Pak. And Pak donated the funds to Wau Holland. The DAO has no insight or partnership or control with Wau Holland.

According to Wau Holland Foundation’s website their mission is:

'The Foundation carries on the courageous works of Wau Holland (Herwart Holland-Moritz) against totalitarian structures, and for the unconditional upholding of human rights in order to reinforce the peaceful coexistence of peoples.

To this end, the Foundation promotes global freedom-of-information and informational self-determination. The objective is to archive and further Wau Holland’s enlightened body of ideas, and to make them accessible to the public in a suitable format. The Foundation also promotes worldwide scientific discourse through conferences and the dissemination of scholarly materials. In the interests of freedom-of-information, it particularly supports the distribution of materials for scientific & scholarly purposes that would otherwise be inaccessible to the public, through technical and legal methods.

The Foundation regards itself as a non-profit institution that empowers responsible individuals and organisations with the opportunity to dedicate themselves toward these goals. Donations are collected and utilized to accomplish the Foundation’s tasks / objectives.’

Considering this, perhaps the new Mission Statement for the DAO should be something like:

New Potential AssangeDAO Mission Statement

AssangeDAO is dedicated to securing a presidential pardon for Julian Assange and advancing global freedom of information, whistleblower protections, and transparency to uphold human rights. Inspired by the pursuit of truth and justice, we empower decentralized communities to advocate for Assange’s exoneration, protect those who expose systemic injustices, and promote the free flow of knowledge for public, scientific, and scholarly purposes. Through community-driven governance, we build a global solidarity network that champions press freedom, resists censorship, and fosters equitable access to information for the betterment of society.’

But perhaps that is missing some things and is too wordy.

Revised New Potential AssangeDAO Mission Statement

To fight for Julian Assange’s full freedom, including his pardon, and to advance his vision of achieving justice by championing truth, transparency, free speech, whistleblower protection, human rights, and the end of wars through decentralized action.

One other thing we must remember is that the DAO should aim to provide value for it’s community (JUSTICE token holders) & Assange/Assange’s values. Like other DAOs that are able to raise funds and start projects while simultaneously providing value to it’s token.

Currently a large portion of the AssangeDAO community feels like it was rug pulled, even though AssangeDAO had it on a pinned tweet that it would ‘max bid’ the entire amount of Eth we raised to bid on Pak’s NFT - this was not effectively communicated on our forum or website, and looking back the DAO should have clearly implemented something like a 50% / 50% where half of the funds raised were used to bid on the NFT and the other half remained in the DAO treasury to advance the DAO in other areas.

It should be possible for the long term to start projects that increase the value of the JUSTICE token - for example - a project the DAO starts where a % of the funds raised (say through the sale of a different NFT or some project where people have to pay some Eth to sign an open letter or petition) go to the DAO treasury - and the DAO treasury could start a ‘basket’ of cryptocurrency along with JUSTICE tokens so that JUSTICE token represents that entire basket - which in the long term would increase the value of the JUSTICE token. This gives people incentive to buy and hold the JUSTICE token while at the same time giving the DAO more funds to engage in projects.

Basically what I am saying is it should be possible to increase the value of JUSTICE token (or another Token which is given to current JUSTICE holders) while advancing the DAOs mission, in which the DAOs mission could advance even further and faster - so in the end everyone wins.

At the end of the day, the JUSTICE holders have to come up with proposals and vote on them using their JUSTICE tokens - so it is token holders who decide the future of the DAO.

1 Like
11

With all due respect to the members of the “Chinese community”, they don’t like the fact that their tokens appreciate after such a long period of time, they prefer an explosive rise after 6 months or even a quarter. That’s why they always criticize the core members for being ineffective and inactive, and always try to hopefully recommend their own representatives to make that happen.

Also, I think the multi-signer candidates @versky @qingfengeth @Logan @sudongpo , plus @bz404 should be more responsive to these series of questions. What I see is a collective silence from these “community representatives”.

1 Like
12

My personal view is that the DAO may prioritize preserving its funds to safeguard resources for future initiatives and projects. That said, if the community ultimately votes in favor of a refund, I will respect the collective decision of the DAO. After all, the essence of a DAO is collective governance, and the will of the community should guide the path forward. At the same time, I think we could also explore the possibility of opening a dialogue with Pak to see if a “redemption” arrangement could allow part of the NFT auction funds to be returned, which would provide the DAO with greater flexibility.

13

I agree - the DAO had many active members to begin with but many stepped away too quickly and it essentially became dormant for far too long.

In my opinion, the best case scenario for the DAO would be if Julian became involved either directly or indirectly, or even just asking his contacts to become involved with the DAO, and the DAO adopted a new mission statement that aligned with the causes he cares about most. But it seems that Julian is now living a quiet life and has rarely been seen except for the Gaza march, Film Festival and in the EU Parliament. It is my hope that one day Julian will return to fighting for Justice in full force as his voice is among the loudest in the world today.

Either way, I think the DAO needs to maybe first sell the NFT.

I hope that @bz404 and @Logan can start sharing their ideas so that when the new Multisigs are selected in a few weeks we can quickly engage in proposals.

No new proposals need to be added until after then, and I would be happy if I am not the only one adding proposals to Snapshot - but lets not waste time as we know that these next proposals will determine the future of the DAO and of the JUSTICE token so they will need plenty of community discussion and feedback.

I think we need to seriously consider selling the NFT and either close the DAO as it’s primary mission has been accomplished, or do some of the other ideas I have already suggested.

If I am missing anything or if anyone else has ideas - please let me know.

1 Like
14

I understand what you mean and I remember the points that you had mentioned.

  1. Even though the DAO has no insights what is going on at WAU Holland, it does not mean that it’s possible to communicate with them to how the rest of the donations can help in giving Julian a pardon in future. It’s worth a try in my opinion, independently of the DAO. On the other hand, i wouldn’t be suprised if anybody asked already?

  2. When I look back to the past, as the token price decreased, it lead to cursing Julian, and celebrating him, when the price went up. I personally don’t like the idea, that the mood of a community can get influenced by the dynamics of a token price and that’s an important aspect, that should also be considered in future. Financial interests and Purpose can be in conflict with each other and that can be a weakness, messing with the expectations of why somebody participates and why not, especially when a mission serves a purpose to make a political change. The purpose of why somebody joins and what somebody expects are essential aspects of core values and these usually give direction and therefore, common goals.

  3. I also believe that selling the NFT
    is a good step to take further actions, but first, all the other questions how this DAO continues (if) should be answered.

  4. If the DAO continues and the scope of it broadens, rebbranding like you mentioned, could make sense. The mission to free Assange defined the name / brand. Now, where he is free and the scope of the DAO could be more broad with more missions and interests (also without Assange in it) it can be considered. Of course, It’s only Julian’s decision if he involves or not, directly or indirectly. His presence or words can have an impact, but first of all his health & freedom has much more priority, considering his long legal battle, bad actors in his past etc. He deserves to have peace.

16

Thank you so much for raising so many thought-provoking questions.
For me personally, I am 100% in favor of keeping the DAO alive and continuing under the same name. Over the past two to three years, I’ve always hoped to see the DAO break out of its stagnation and grow into something stronger and more impactful. I believe it has the potential to make a real difference and help more people in need. If we were to close it down now, I would honestly feel very disappointed.

The idea of selling the Pak x Assange “Clock” NFT is good, but I don’t think we should rush it right after governance is restored. The DAO should plan carefully and wait for the right timing to get the best value and impact.

For mission and vision, I strongly agree with Zylo’s framing:To fight for Julian Assange’s full freedom, including his pardon, and to advance his vision of achieving justice by championing truth, transparency, free speech, whistleblower protection, human rights, and the end of wars through decentralized action.

About the treasury: yes, I believe we should use part of the ETH to fund project development and audits. That’s the whole point of having a treasury — to help the DAO grow and achieve its mission. I also support using some ETH to support $JUSTICE liquidity. Without enough liquidity, the token can be too volatile, which discourages new people from joining. A moderate liquidity boost could strengthen confidence and create a positive cycle.
I hope we can give real utility and value to $JUSTICE by building a clear token economy around it.I’d love to see the DAO build a $JUSTICE-powered ecosystem. At the same time, we should explore sustainable financial models (like partnerships, community grants, and support for public goods) so the DAO can thrive for years to come.

Regarding the remaining funds held by the Wau Holland Foundation, I think that once governance is fully restored, we should still make an effort to reach out to them directly and try to establish communication. It’s important for the DAO to clearly understand WHF’s perspective on how these funds are being managed and what their position is on the matter.