First, big congratulations on this massive donation to free Assange. Anons loudly united through blockchain technology to have a concrete impact on policies on ground, and this in itself is a success for the future of our sovereignty.
Since the max bid was placed, some forum participants claimed that they would have liked liquidity to remain in the DAO instead of given towards Assange’s fight for freedom. I believe these claims should be ignored since this was never the purpose of the DAO, and there will always be complaining trolls.
Let’s be clear, this effort is 1) experimental, and nobody can claim otherwise; 2) very successful given the amounts contributed; and 3) fulfilled all of its promises: justice minted, NFT obtained, money disbursed against the NFT which will go towards Assange’s defence.
Nonetheless, I would like to suggest here some next steps with regards to the money donated. These steps may also address some concerns voiced in the forum.
In legacy systems, donations often come hand in hand with some accountability and reporting requirements from the receiver. Here, I understand that Assange’s family is very much involved in the process. I would personally appreciate to have:
**- a bio description from the brother who made the max bid proposal here, explaining for those who do not know him personally why he should be trusted, namely that he is safekeeping Assange’s interests and why Assange himself is trusting him
who is the receiving person/institution, where it is incorporated, what are their reporting requirement?
whether we will be kept in the loop on how the proceeds are spent. Where is the money going? How is it governed there?
and anything else that can reasonably be disclosed, without harming Assange’s strategies and creating unreasonable overhead. Can 40mil have no strings attached? I believe it can, but it shouldn’t, this community deserves care**
There may have been some misunderstanding on the pure direct donation aspect of this initiative (and this may have resulted from not fully reading the docs, the discord, and from a lack of centralised narratives - by design): the narrative initially put forward was (i) bidding to buy the NFT (a purchase where the proceeds are donated), in contrast with a (ii) direct donation.
Maybe (i) and (ii) are exactly the same for those who wanted to donate, and would have still given the money without the justice token, without the nft and without the reimbursement rights…
But those, if any at all, who got convinced to give because of one of these three elements may feel confused as to the direct max bid, given that this is out of the ordinary. The fact that there are several posts in the forum discussing bidding strategies, including one proposing the direct max bid, hint that some did not consider a direct max bid as the initial common strategy.
Although contributors could and should have expected, even wanted imo, the bidding to get as high as the max bid, the difference here is the lack of a counter bid which would give the illusion at least of a market for the NFT/for donating to Assange. We can assume that the market was absorbed by the DAO itself, meaning that the other interested bidders directly contributed to the DAO and therefore there was no more liquidity for a bidding fight. Fair enough: the goal is to max money for Assange.
→ To move forward and summarise, it would be nice to give information on whom is getting the money, how trustworthy they are, how they plan to spend the money for assange and how they won’t forget about those who gave. Have a process for continuous updates and a process to use this amazing community, to further help Assange in different other ways than capital contribution.
Bonus, given it’s a donation, if there can be any mechanism for tax deduction of the money donated?
Thank you for making history.