I have always been committed to upholding the core mission of DAO and this is what I have contributed. In my opinion the lack of great ideas being implemented is the key to DAO’s silence, and sadly bz canceled the direct idea- book club from Julian. Also included is the blocking of the Assange award. You should know who is really stopping the community.
You have no right to ask me to leave. @sudongpo If you want to leave, feel free to do so.
Endless arguing won’t solve anything—especially when we’re already short-staffed and stretched thin. Instead of pointing fingers, we should focus on uniting behind the people who do step up, because time ultimately reveals who is genuinely building and who is merely talking.
What we’re really missing are fresh ideas, which is another way of saying we need more talent. To attract that talent, we need a powerful catalyst. In my view there are two realistic levers:
A public signal from Julian Assange.
Even a brief, symbolic statement that he recognizes or supports the DAO would electrify the community and draw new contributors overnight.
The return of the remaining ETH from the Wau Holland Foundation.
Unlike the first option, this doesn’t require Julian to speak publicly. It could be coordinated quietly behind the scenes. A visible replenishment of the treasury would prove that the DAO is once again a serious, well-funded player—exactly the kind of signal that motivates developers, designers, and organizers to get involved.
If we can secure even one of these catalysts, we’ll have a credible story to tell, the resources to back it up, and—most important—the momentum to bring in the talent our community so badly needs.
Given the need for progress, Snapshot should continue whilst the technical team evaluates the other technologies available. Nothing should be dumped or not explored yet.
However how many technical people have come forward @Logan to research the suitability of voting platforms? Please inform the community. Or do we pay platforms for initial consultation? If so how many should we consider to do a proper comparison?
How can we ensure a balance of multi-sig members to prevent any collusion, if we have to rely upon Snapshot in the meantime - in the old days - the community discussed various risks related to the selection of multi sigs from the USA (when JA faced his major legal challenge) and more than two representatives from any particular country etc???
I also think perhaps JA and/or GS should try appointing a couple of high profile people for the multi-sig.
Does a decentralised platform contain any other potential security risks and how will the DAO assess them and by whom?
Will the DAO have to outsource in order to get things up and running?
Sorry, Im not a technical person and couldn’t help.
There are ways to accommodate everybody’s concerns though.
So far, no technical contributors have stepped forward to evaluate or push ahead with selecting a voting platform
Thank you. Not an unexpected obstacle when the DAO has no project income. Outsourcing may have to be considered.
TBH, one can easily think of both ideas. But the important thing is how to make this happen! Julian may be thankful for DAO, but do you think he will participate in a community full of lies? All crypto projects are building a good vibe, whereas here it’s always a malicious one!
Respecting common sense is enough, it doesn’t require too many fresh ideas, such as Assange’s public gratitude to DAO, the return of remaining funds to DAO, The Assange family has an obligation to do these two things for the DAO, rather than the few people left here to discuss and decide nothing, why are the others not here? they left disappointed. they were not thanked, and it is unknown what family did for the return of the remaining funds.@Gabriel.
About appointing a couple of high profile people for the multi-sig. I think it’s worth considering. We need excellent talents to join us
Yes—every other crypto project works hard to foster a positive atmosphere; this place feels like the exception. But the hostility didn’t appear out of thin air. In my view it stems from a long-standing communication gap between the core team and the wider community. People here genuinely want to move the project forward, yet they keep running into a wall of silence and inaction—so frustration festers and turns into conflict. Better dialogue and transparency from the core members would go a long way toward restoring trust and letting everyone pull in the same direction.
We shouldn’t be stuck in past grievances. It is wise to understand the problem and then solve it. And hate does not help. Respect (for people and facts) is the key to unlocking solutions.
Yes,you are right.
A major bottleneck is that none of the core members feel accountable to the DAO. Because they see themselves purely as volunteers, any contribution is viewed as a favor rather than a responsibility. When “helping out” is optional, essential tasks slip through the cracks and the community stalls.
How do we change this?
It feels like we’re back to square one: this is the reality of the community—we want change, yet we’re powerless to make it happen
I think it just takes a little patience, and things are quietly changing.
@Logan If your proposal is deployed successfully, I think it will create accountability. Core members and DEVs will be centered on product and collaboration, and DAO authorizes those agendas.
Migrating to a decentralized voting platform will also address the inability of multi-signs to be held accountable as well as trust in multi-signs. In the past, there have been multi-signs who have been unable to be held accountable even though they have infringed on the DAO, or had personal issues. The reason was that we had no basis for enforcement. A decentralized platform prevents multi-signs from colluding to bypass the community and the consensus unit, and also avoids the risk to the public good of multi-signs’ personal behavior.
No - the DAO could concede that external professionals in various fields should be recruited. Members should just maintain Governance.
Are you saying someone is already working on deploying on-chain governance? I reached out to Amir and asked if he could help. He replied that he has already written the contracts — we just need to test and deploy them.
However, I’m not technical and don’t know how to handle that part, so I also asked Zylo if he could coordinate with Amir to complete the process. I’m not sure if they’ve managed to connect yet.
That said, what we really need now is to see an open discussion on the forum that outlines the concrete steps or a detailed roadmap for implementing on-chain governance. This will allow the community to properly assess the approach — is it secure? Is it truly more decentralized? — and then make an informed decision through a vote
I actually suggested to the core members that we could use treasury funds to recruit technical professionals to help implement on-chain governance—but no response received，So I don’t know how to proceed with this suggestion.
There may be some misunderstandings brought on by grammar here, I don’t know if anyone is deploying Tally, but I was saying all governance is being pushed.
I’m also in favor of explaining the process of using Tally and assessing its risks. And the process remains transparent.
Is there any other way out of a labor shortage???
In reality, if we focus on $JUSTICE and successfully drive its price upward, it could naturally attract many new contributors to join and help build the DAO. A rising token price sends a clear signal of momentum and potential — and that energy can translate into real community growth and renewed participation.
It can become a positive flywheel: price movement brings attention → attention brings contributors → contributors bring development and legitimacy → which in turn drives further interest and value. That’s how many successful communities got their start.
That action plan is an investment project to boost the treasury and increase membership. It is ethereal, distant, non-precise for attracting the best mix of highly skilled personel. Even that project - the time factor for achieving that - with nobody being active…???