Dear Silke, I’m sorry to see this review of yours as it distorts a lot of facts. Let me answer your questions step by step
亲爱的Silke, 我很遗憾看到您的上面的评论,因为它歪曲了很多事实。让我一步步回答您的问题。
From you: “I disagree with the reference in this proposal to the “Chinese community”. No other group of persons claims to represent a whole country and demands special rights within the AssangeDAO. ”
我的回答: 我非常同意您说的一点是,只有一个 AssangeDAO 社区。
这里没有你提到的华人社区。有的只是一个说中文的小组(中文群),里面有400多位来自世界各地用中文交流的朋友。这个小组对于任何愿意用中文交流的朋友都是开放的。如果您愿意,也非常欢迎您来我们的中文群.
My answer: I totally agree with you that there is only one AssangeDAO community.
There is no Chinese community you mentioned here. There is only a Chinese-speaking group (Chinese group) with more than 400 friends from all over the world who communicate in Chinese. This group is open to anyone willing to communicate in Chinese. If you want, you are also very welcome to come to our Chinese group.
From you: “I have received messages from several persons claiming to be Chinese who state that this Chinese Community and bZ does not represent them. I have received several messages about the aims of this “Chinese community” that I hope to post in a different post. “
我的回答: 因为语言的问题,我们这个中文群里的很多英文不好的人需要有人代表我们去和英文组以及阿桑奇家人沟通,bz 就是这位在相互交流上贡献了很多帮助的自愿者,因此,我认为他符合一个成为多签人的基本条件,当然这个是需要通过DAO的提案投票来最终决定,持否定意见的人有权力在投票环节中投出否决票。
再次重申,没有中国社区,只有中文群(说中文的群)
My answer: Because of language problems, many people in our Chinese group who are not good at English need someone to communicate with the English group and the Assange family on our behalf. bz is a volunteer who has contributed a lot to mutual communication. Therefore, I think he meets the basic conditions for becoming a multi-signature person. Of course, this needs to be finalized through DAO’s proposal voting,those with negative opinions have the right to cast a negative vote in the voting session.
Again, there is no Chinese community, only Chinese groups (Chinese-speaking group)。
From you: “The reason provided here for asking to temporarily add two multisigs outside of the governance discussions is misconceived. “
我的回答: 目前的五位多签人,2位已经离开。为了执行一个有结果的提案,需要3位多签人确认。因此,增加2位多签人来弥补那离开的两位的位置,这个是保证有结果的提案被有效执行的唯一途径。
我不明白,您为什么认为这个是错误的。
My answer:
Of the five current multi-signers, two have left. In order to execute a resulting proposal, 3 multi-signer confirmations are required. Therefore, adding 2 multi-signers to make up for the two left is the only way to ensure that the resulting proposal is effectively implemented.
I don’t understand why you think this is wrong.
From you: “The proposal to burn the access key to juicebox in order to stop any possibility to mint new Justice tokens should not have been added as a proposal to the DAO at this time as it did not relate to the initial governance setup. It meant that a serious proposal such as this was decided by the rudimentary governance mechanism we set up at the beginning to decide on the future of governance. It was put up after severe mobbing and pressure from the “Chinese Community” although it was entirely clear that this matter was only to be decided AFTER the governance mechanism had been set up. “
我的回答: 老实说,看到上面的文字,我感到很难过。因为它歪曲事实,污蔑了中文群。
到目前为止,已经有三个提案以DAO的治理方式投票通过。这三个提案对于这个DAO的共识凝聚和发展是至关重要的。他们是1.核心使命, 2.关闭通证增发和3.否决权。
这三个重要的提案在论坛上都经历了充分的讨论,然后进入snapshot的投票环节。投票的结果,反应了社区的意志,是整个AssangeDAO社区的意志,中文群只是其中小小一部分。
提案一经投票确认结果,多签人有义务去执行投票结果。这个是DAO的治理过程。
因此我对您评论中叙述的下列文字深表遗憾: “severe mobbing and pressure from the “Chinese Community””
再次重申,没有中国社区,只有中文群(说中文的群)
My answer:
Honestly, seeing the text above makes me sad. Because it distorts the facts and slanders the Chinese group.
So far, three proposals have been voted on with DAO governance. These three proposals are crucial to the consensus cohesion and development of this DAO. They are 1. core mission, 2. closing token issuance and 3. veto power.
These three important proposals have been fully discussed on the forum, and then entered the voting session of the snapshot. The result of the voting reflects the will of the community and is the will of the entire AssangeDAO Community, of which the Chinese group is only a small part.
Once the proposal is voted to confirm the result, the multi-signer is obliged to execute the voting result. This is the governance process of DAO.
Therefore I deeply regret the following text stated in your comment: “severe mobbing and pressure from the “Chinese Community””
Again, there is no Chinese community, only Chinese groups (Chinese-speaking group)
From you: “What is the negative effect of this proposal: persons who burnt their tokens accidentally cannot be made whole again as the juicebox mechanism is now frozen. As the proposal was not relating with governance, a decision had to be taken whether it should at all be implemented given the serious consequences to several persons who donated to the AssangeDAO - and now have no voice. Here it is noteworthy that it is “this Chinese Community” that claims to have no voice, but who forced this matter through without regard to those people. “
我的回答: 通证增发关闭是非常重要的一个提案。因为Justice通证是捐赠人通过捐赠获得的勋章,是捐赠人捐赠行为产生的价值所在。
如果这个价值不能被保障,一定会影响DAO的共识的凝聚和继续发展。因此这个提案是和DAO治理严重有机相关的
在通证增发被关闭之后,在joicebox上之前没有提取的token仍旧可以被提取。
意外烧毁代币情况,我个人观点是,每个人应该对自己的投资和操作负责。在加密数字货币世界,每天有很多误操作导致BTC,ETH或者其他代币被烧毁,又有谁来补偿他们呢?
但是在DAO,我们依旧有机会通过提出提案和投票的过程来决定,是否补偿和如何补偿这些意外操作导致的损失。比如可以从未来充裕的金库里拨款补偿。
综上所述,关闭通证增发并没有您所夸大的不良影响。反而是增强了社区的凝聚力,从而有效地推动社区的治理进一步落实。
My answer:
The closure of additional token issuance is a very important proposal. Because the Justice Token is the medal obtained by the donor through donation, and it is the value generated by the donation behavior of the donor.
If this value cannot be guaranteed, it will definitely affect the cohesion and continued development of the DAO consensus. Therefore, this proposal is seriously and organically related to DAO governance.
After the token issuance is closed, the tokens that have not been withdrawn on the joybox can still be withdrawn.
In the case of accidental burning of tokens, my personal opinion is that everyone should be responsible for their own investments and operations. In the world of encrypted digital currency, there are many misoperations that cause BTC, ETH or other tokens to be burned every day, who will compensate them?
But in the DAO, we still have the opportunity to decide whether and how to compensate for the losses caused by these unexpected operations through the process of proposal and voting. For example, compensation can be allocated from the future abundant treasury.
To sum up, closing the token issuance does not have the negative effect that you exaggerate. Instead, it enhances the cohesion of the community, thereby effectively promoting the further implementation of community governance.