The question of whether the justice can be increased through the contract needs to be placed in the first proposal

First of all, I want to thank friends from all sides for their efforts.
I am a fan of Assange, and I also quite agree with the dao culture. After knowing this assangedao, I donated a part of my strength without hesitation.
If we can work together to expand our influence, it will be a very good way to influence the final outcome for free Assange, as the proverb goes: the more people, the greater the power.

As a member of the community, I want to raise a question of concern by lots of friends, namely whether justice can continue to increase its circulation through contracts.
This is a topic that needs to be included in the first proposal.
Of course, we may encounter a variety of problems in the subsequent development, such as a member accidentally destroyed their own tokens, such as the dao organization wants to raise money to do something, and so on.
We can cast a portion of the justice early by contract.

Here is my proposal.

Do you agree with retaining the ability to increase the justice through contracts?

if no,do you agree with casting some justice early through the contracts for unexpected needs?

if yes,how much amount do you think of early casting is more appropriate?

  1. 0.5%
  2. 1%

If there are some unsound places here, I hope everyone to add. The most important thing right now is to make the dao governance structure work as soon as possible.

1 Like

What about people who accidentally burned their tokens? Should they be able to get some JUSTICE by minting more to fund those people?

What about people who accidentally burned their tokens? Should they be able to get some JUSTICE by minting more to fund those people?

I do not understand how a person may have inadvertently burned their tokens, it would depend upon who bears the responsibility for the negligence.

Maybe they are not very technical or don’t speak english well idk but there were a bunch of people

  • I think people need to pay for their mistakes. If today they say they accidentally burned the token and need us to issue additional tokens to compensate, and tomorrow someone mistakenly transfers the token to the contract address and asks for additional issuance, I think it is extremely unreasonable. I think the first thing now is to cancel the additional issuance of tokens

I believe that if this is going to be a DAO, that the option should never be closed to the DAO, but it also should never be done without the permission of the DAO. Realistically, even if AssangeDAO is going to be a fractional NFT meme machine, how would it raise funds to bid on new NFT’s without increasing the amount of issued tokens? On the other hand if the DAO becomes a civil rights org, and then there may be a need to generate money in the treasury to hire attorneys to represent the people, which would likely involve the need to issue more tokens in exchange for donations to the treasury.

  • Now DAO organization is very fragile, if the possibility of additional issuance is retained, I think it will be the end of DAO. I believe that if DAO develops normally, it can completely collect tokens from the community to enrich the state Treasury. I believe that the community is also insisting on the removal of the secondary issue feature, which we think is a great hidden danger.
1 Like



The best way is by no means to keep the additional issuance, but to cancel the additional issuance.
As for those who accidentally burn, they can submit a certificate to apply for community fundraising compensation.
I believe in the power of this district.

If the additional issuance is reserved, the price of JUSTIC will be on the floor; we cannot create a strong community; it is difficult to achieve anything.
Just for 30ETH, sacrificing the interests of the entire community and 17000ETH people?








Cancellation of the possibilty of justice-token’s increase is a very important issue. I hope, this issue could be add to the first round of voting. If the issue of cancelling token increase is passed, please implement it as soon as possible!


if I accidentally send my btc to a wrong address, can I get those token back?

Agree +1, this requires some proof.

The cancellation of the rights issue is imperative, not only for the long-term development of the project, but also for the rescue of Mr. Assange. Because our community is still in its infancy, there is an urgent need for more consensus to forge a solid wall against those who maliciously slander Mr. Assange.


Supported! I was misled by hateful people and destroyed all my tokens

I personally can’t agree more that ability to increase the justice through contracts is the top concern which we community should discuss and vote for , token economics is the spirit of DAO which the whole community belief in, minting more token will cutting people’s interest and engagement to the DAO.

1 Like

I do not understand what happened, and am genuinely interested, if you can tell the community what happened to you in detail.

I guess, tgw has mentioned another token, but not $Justice…

这个没办法 社区也没办法 唯一的是重新买回来 到时100倍一样吃肉 买入支持我们

The DAO could always vote to purchase tokens from token holders in order to compensate people who were scammed or pay others for projects. This would increase the value of the tokens.

Additionally, closing the minting may increase the value of the token.

If/When Julian donates an NFT to the DAO, the treasury could simply auction it and the funds could go to the treasury only.