You are the one who created the first proposal, to limit the amount of scope creep in the project, and that proposal passed. The proposal was not “should we limit our focus to whatever the Assange family likes”, even if that is what you would like it to imply, there has to be an objective analysis from the point of view of the shareholders who voted, from the language of the vote itself, whether the activity will actually free Assange, or whether it is outside that scope as an “other activity”.
I had already told you that the first proposal was written badly, and that it did not reflect the community will, because it provided a false dichotomy, but you proceeded to go with it anyways, so you cant change your mind now, just because you have the “great idea”. Instead you need to create a new governance proposal, to ask the community for permission to change the “core mission” again, to include the options I told you.
*The only mission is to Free Assange.
*Free Assange, among other activities.
*Only pursue other activities.
More international recognition of Julian Assange and an award issued in his name that his family endorses could bring significant attention and support to his case.
So does a great number of other projects, solely by virtue of branding it with his name, but the question presented was not “should we focus on proposals promoted by the Assange family”, and you cannot use the “maybe it might free Assange, in a round about way, through several steps of speculative and hypothetical circumstances” to avoid it. The shareholders care very much about token price, which is why they have limited the amount of issuance, and giving away money for something not connected to the new core mission, is violating the fiduciary duty to the shareholders.
Only public pressure will see the US Government drop the case.
This is truly delusional, and demonstrates that you have no idea how the US justice system works. The grand jury has already secured an indictment, if the judge thinks that there is political interference, he is likely to appoint a special prosecutor / special counsel not controlled by the government. The entire premise of the “independence of the judiciary”, is that you cannot get away with a crime, simply because you have friends in high places, see e.g. the prosecution of Jussie Smollett and Michael Flynn.
His court fight is very important but it is not the full battle for his freedom.
Sure, but good luck getting a pardon from Joe Biden, Biden has claimed that Assange is a terrorist, and there is no way this DAO is going to have more influence with Biden, than the military and intelligence agencies, who claim to be harmed by Assange. The whole point of why we have the “independence of the judiciary”, is so that Assange is judged by a jury of his peers, based upon the facts and evidence, rather that in a political theatre. The first question that is going to be asked of potential jury members is: “do you know who Julian Assange is?”, which will be enough to remove them from the jury.