Julian Assange’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, refuted claims made by blockchain security firms SlowMist and RescuETH on June 17, asserting to Cointelegraph that their April report accusing AssangeDAO of conducting a “soft rug” was entirely false. According to Shipton, SlowMist mistakenly identified AssangeDAO with the Wau Holland Foundation, emphasizing that AssangeDAO no longer holds the 16,593 Ether (ETH) it raised in 2022. Instead, all funds were used to purchase a non-fungible token (NFT) called “Clock” from artist Pak as part of the “Censored” collection.
The proceeds from the NFT sale were donated to the German charity Wau Holland Foundation for the “Moral Courage Project: Julian Assange,” dedicated to supporting Assange’s defense and freedom. Shipton clarified that the foundation manages the funds under German charity law, utilizing them for legal expenses and advocacy efforts related to Assange and WikiLeaks.
Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, is currently incarcerated in London, facing extradition charges from the United States related to publishing classified documents. Supporters argue his actions constitute protected free speech. AssangeDAO’s purchase of the Clock NFT was confirmed through blockchain data, and the funds are no longer under AssangeDAO’s control.
AssangeDAO: Supporting Julian Assange’s Legal Defense and Advocacy Efforts
In early 2022, AssangeDAO was established with the goal of pooling investor funds to acquire the Clock NFT. Inspired by the successful model of ConstitutionDAO, which aimed to purchase an original copy of the U.S. Constitution, AssangeDAO quickly gained traction in the decentralized finance (DeFi) community.
By February 2022, AssangeDAO had amassed over $53 million, setting a record as the most well-funded DAO initiative to date. This significant financial backing underscored widespread support for Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, amidst his legal challenges and advocacy for freedom of information.
Upon its inception, AssangeDAO announced a collaboration between Assange and the artist Pak. Pak intended to launch a collection of NFTs titled “Censored,” with the centerpiece being the “Clock” NFT. This unique digital artwork featured a dynamic counter tracking the number of days Assange had spent in detention due to his journalistic endeavors with WikiLeaks, symbolizing solidarity and support for his cause.
According to the project’s website, the Censored line of NFTs was designed with the purpose of generating funds to support Julian Assange’s legal defense.
AssangeDAO is distinct from the Censored project, as its primary goal was to purchase the art piece rather than produce it. The DAO introduced a token named JUSTICE, which it sold for ETH. According to the DAO’s announcements, the proceeds from this initiative would be utilized to participate in the NFT auction. The DAO aimed to secure the bid for Clock. However, in the event of failure, it sought to elevate the minimum price of the digital artwork, enabling Assange’s family to raise more funds than originally anticipated.
SlowMist’s report alleges “suspicious” transactions
On April 2, SlowMist and RescuETH released a report advising caution to potential investors in AssangeDAO. The report raised concerns about the transparency of AssangeDAO’s operations, stating, “The true intentions behind AssangeDAO remain unknown, and we await an official explanation or further disclosure of information from the organization itself.”
The firms urged investors to conduct thorough research before engaging with any project, particularly those involving Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs).
Highlighting a specific incident, the report noted a suspicious transfer of 100 ETH (approximately $388,000 at the time) on March 10, 2024, originating from the “Censored: Clock Multisig” address, beginning with 0x5DA. According to the report, this address is associated with AssangeDAO, prompting concerns among some community members about a potential “Soft Rug Pull.”
Furthermore, the report claimed that the address is also linked to the German Wau Holland Foundation’s multi-signature account. Blockchain data analyzed using SlowMist’s MistTrack AML platform indicated that on April 8, 2022, 580.745 ETH from this address was transferred to a smart contract, which subsequently distributed the funds across various wallet accounts. Another transfer of 34.99 ETH occurred on May 9, 2022, and 124 ETH (approximately $250,000) was sent to a Coinbase deposit address on May 11, 2022.
Following these transactions, the funds were consolidated into two main accounts: one beginning with 0x323, established in October 2020 and frequently interacting with centralized exchanges, and another starting with 0x2f9.
The report concluded that while AssangeDAO originally pursued noble goals, recent substantial fund transfers have raised numerous questions, especially concerning the final destination of these funds.
AssangeDAO Blockchain Insights: Exploring Financial Activities
The blockchain data clarifies that the deployer address for the Censored: Clock NFT, starting with 0x5DA, is distinct from the AssangeDAO multisig wallet. The Ethereum username AssangeDAO.eth resolves to an address ending in eA00, which is entirely separate from the account involved in the reported suspicious transfers.
Moreover, records indicate that this account successfully acquired the Clock NFT, spending approximately $51 million. Shortly after the purchase, Pak transferred ownership of the digital art piece to AssangeDAO, where it remains held today. The funds generated from the sale were directed to the Censored: Clock project team account and are no longer retained within the AssangeDAO multisig wallet.
Shipton asserted that while blockchain data can demonstrate transactions conducted by distinct wallet addresses, it cannot definitively prove complete organizational separation. He stated that the deployer account for the Censored: Clock NFT is under the control of the Wau Holland Foundation, not AssangeDAO.
Some members of the DAO remain dissatisfied
Despite Shipton’s assurances, discontent persists among some members of AssangeDAO regarding the team’s conduct.
According to a JUSTICE tokenholder interviewed by Cointelegraph under anonymity, the DAO lacks a proper token-based voting mechanism. They expressed dissatisfaction over the DAO’s decision to spend the entire $55 million on the NFT without community approval, which they argued goes against the principles of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). In DAO governance, community consensus is typically pivotal.
The tokenholder claimed that there were dissenting voices within the DAO who advocated for retaining a portion of the funds for other charitable endeavors. However, their proposals were reportedly overridden by the signatories of the DAO’s multisignature wallet, who unilaterally approved the transaction to purchase the NFT. Allegedly, the signatories justified their action by asserting that the DAO’s purpose had been clearly outlined on the organization’s website, thereby negating the need for a formal vote.
DAOs were conceived to enable decentralized decision-making and coordination among investors worldwide, transcending geographical boundaries and legal jurisdictions. Nevertheless, they have also become arenas for contentious debates and internal disputes among their members.
Earlier this year, HectorDAO members accused the development team of an “inside job” hack following the loss of $2.7 million under suspicious circumstances, prompting the DAO’s takeover by an insolvency firm through a court order. Similarly, in April, MangoDAO faced accusations from some members of insider activities akin to a hostile takeover.