Silke Noa on How AssangeDAO Freed Julian Assange
Video via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TD6mbSHles
Description
Silke Noa - How AssangeDAO freed Julian Assange:
"In late 2021, while Julian Assange bravely endured the harsh conditions of England’s supermax Belmarsh prison, with his health and legal situation rapidly deteriorating, a group of crypto-native cypherpunks united to fight for his freedom. Harnessing crypto’s most powerful tools for coordination and capital formation, we raised more than 17k ETH by forming a DAO with one goal: to free Assange by any means necessary. The AssangeDAO funds were used to cover all of Assange's legal costs and support many campaigns.
Within 2 years, Assange was freed from prison. AssangeDAO became the first DAO in history to achieve a tangible, high-stakes, real-world goal: freeing Assange. His freedom today would not have been possible without the contributions of the 10,000 anons behind this effort. Yet, while the world celebrates Assange’s lawyers and digital rights groups, the contribution of AssangeDAO has remained largely unrecognized. Its story is still untold.
This is a small attempt to do justice to AssangeDAO, its extraordinary achievement, and the ongoing challenges it continues to face."
Transcript
Silke Noa:
"It’s late 2021, and Julian Assange is still bravely enduring life in Belmarsh, the UK’s high-security prison. His health is deteriorating, and his legal situation is becoming increasingly dire. In response, a group of crypto natives, including cypherpunks, gathers online to fight for his freedom.
This is how AssangeDAO was formed—at the time, one of crypto’s primary tools for coordination and capital formation. The DAO raised over 17,000 ETH, worth around $54 million at the time, with a singular goal: to free Julian Assange by any means necessary.
Over the next two years, these funds were used to finance all of Assange’s legal campaigns. Some legal costs had already been covered through the Wau Holland Foundation, which had been supporting his defense since 2019. But ultimately, within two years, Assange was free. Many argue that AssangeDAO played a decisive role in securing his release. Without the contributions of over 10,000 people, the legal campaign—which was incredibly expensive—might not have succeeded. Nearly all of the money came from the funds raised in crypto.
Despite this, very little has been written about AssangeDAO. And when it was reported on, it was often misrepresented. Headlines spoke of "AssangeDAO sparking rug pull concerns" or alleged "suspicious transfers," but these narratives failed to capture the reality of what happened. This document is part of a broader effort to clarify the DAO’s role and counter misinformation.
Assange’s case itself has been widely covered, but it, too, can be simplified. Julian Assange, an Australian programmer and journalist, founded WikiLeaks—an organization that gathers and publishes secret information from whistleblowers to expose government corruption and misconduct by powerful actors worldwide. This, of course, angered some of the world’s most influential states.
To avoid persecution, Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London from 2012 to 2019. Meanwhile, in 2018, a sealed U.S. indictment accused him of helping Chelsea Manning access classified U.S. military documents. The charges were later expanded to include 17 counts under the 1917 Espionage Act—marking the first time in history that a publisher had been indicted under this law for disclosing whistleblower-obtained secrets. If convicted, he faced up to 175 years in prison.
In April 2019, after Ecuador revoked his asylum, Assange was arrested and held in Belmarsh for over five years. On June 24, 2024, he was released as part of a plea agreement with the U.S. In this deal, he pleaded guilty to a single charge of conspiracy to disclose national defense information. He was sentenced to time served. At that moment, Julian Assange chose freedom over continuing the legal fight for justice.
His prosecution set a dangerous precedent for journalism. It symbolized the erosion of human rights and press freedom worldwide, exposing deep flaws in the British, Swedish, and U.S. justice systems. The case exemplifies what is now known as "transnational repression"—governments using international legal mechanisms to suppress dissent. For over 13 years, the Assange case has fueled a climate of self-censorship, intimidating journalists across the globe.
Today, when reporters cover war crimes in sanitized language, using the "Newspeak" of modern media, they do so in an era where such atrocities are live-streamed before our eyes. When WikiLeaks released the "Collateral Murder" video, the world was shocked. Now, such horrors barely register.
The Assange case is not just about one man—it is about the future of press freedom, transparency, and the right to expose power without fear of persecution.
Now, let’s return to AssangeDAO.
At the time, Julian Assange was still in prison, his health deteriorating, and the U.S. had just won an appeal to extradite him. His legal campaign was primarily funded by the Wau Holland Foundation in Germany, but they were running out of money. In fact, they had been advancing funds for three years, struggling to raise enough to cover the mounting legal costs, which ranged between $50,000 and $200,000 per year.
We realized that to stand a chance against the U.S. government in court—a government with virtually unlimited legal resources—Assange needed significant financial support. The opposition could employ endless legal strategies to prolong proceedings, driving up costs to the point where his defense would become unsustainable.
At the time, a DAO had formed to raise funds for Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, to support his legal battle. Inspired by this, we decided to create a DAO for Julian. Ross Ulbricht, for those unfamiliar, is currently serving a double life sentence without parole, plus 40 years, for operating the Silk Road marketplace.
The goal of AssangeDAO was clear: to raise funds for Assange’s legal defense. However, lawyers preferred to be paid in fiat currency, while the crypto community was more comfortable donating in cryptocurrency. Many potential donors also valued their anonymity, especially given the controversial nature of the cause.
By 2022, anti-money laundering (AML) regulations had tightened significantly. To ensure Julian could access funds for his legal defense, those funds had to be "bankable"—meaning they needed to be converted from crypto to fiat in a legally compliant manner.
The solution was to structure the fundraising effort around an NFT auction. Assange and the artist Pak were already collaborating on an NFT project. The idea emerged to use the funds raised by AssangeDAO to bid on Pak’s NFT. If the DAO won the bid, the NFT would be transferred to AssangeDAO, while Pak would receive the funds. Pak would then donate the proceeds to the Wau Holland Foundation, which would administer Julian’s defense fund. This way, only Pak needed to undergo KYC verification, rather than thousands of individual donors. Wau Holland could then pay Assange’s lawyers in fiat.
The fundraising took place on Juicebox, a popular platform for crowdfunding projects in the crypto space. At the time, Juicebox had been used by projects like ConstitutionDAO, which had gained mainstream media attention. This made it easier for crypto newcomers to participate in the campaign. Juicebox also allowed donors to leave messages—many wrote "Free Assange"—and in return, they received governance tokens. AssangeDAO’s token was called "JUSTICE."
The fundraising exceeded all expectations. We raised over 17,000 ETH—equivalent to $54 million at the time. The campaign quickly gained traction, and within days, our Telegram groups were flooded with new members, bots, and even coordinated harassment campaigns. The sheer volume of interest also led to internal disagreements about the DAO’s direction.
Governance was structured using a Gnosis Safe multi-signature wallet and Snapshot, a decentralized voting system where JUSTICE token holders could participate in decision-making. This agile governance model was necessary because the auction had to be executed on an extremely tight timeline. The NFT auction was already scheduled, and we had only about 10 days to set everything up. Delaying wasn’t an option, as it would interfere with Pak’s other planned drops.
One of the most misunderstood aspects of the project was the interaction between the fundraising and the actual NFT auction. Assange and Pak launched a separate website, "Censored.art," which used Manifold smart contracts to facilitate the auction. The auction ran from February 7 to February 9, 2022, and once it started, it couldn’t be stopped because it was executed via smart contracts.
The fundraising on Juicebox was divided into funding cycles. The initial deployment occurred on February 3, and the first cycle lasted three days. On Juicebox, if no end date is specified, funding cycles automatically renew, continuing indefinitely unless manually stopped. This led to complexities in managing the raised funds, which will be explored further.
The Final Stages of the AssangeDAO Fundraising and NFT Auction One critical aspect of the fundraising process on Juicebox was the funding cycle mechanism. Initially, we hadn’t fully understood that Juicebox automatically renews funding cycles unless manually stopped. This became apparent when a second funding cycle began on February 6—right in the middle of our campaign.
Realizing that the funding cycle needed to end before the NFT auction closed on February 9 at 2 p.m., we shortened it. This was crucial because Juicebox’s governance token (JUSTICE) could only be issued after a funding cycle had ended. If we had let it run longer, governance wouldn’t have been functional until after the auction, which would have limited the community’s ability to participate in decision-making.
The NFT Auction and Bidding Dynamics The auction for Pak’s NFT, hosted on Censored.art, ran from February 7 to February 9. From the start, it became evident that there weren’t many competing bids. In fact, only two wallets bid against AssangeDAO:
An anonymous wallet that placed an early bid.
Jesse Powell, co-founder of Kraken, who bid against us for a while.
There are a few key reasons why more people didn’t bid:
Gas Fees Were Extremely High: In 2022, during the bull market, Ethereum gas fees were costly. Since bidding on Manifold required paying gas, potential bidders knew they could lose hundreds of dollars per bid if AssangeDAO kept outbidding them.
AssangeDAO’s Large Treasury: The DAO had raised a significant amount—over 17,000 ETH. Many assumed we would simply outbid any competitors, so they didn’t bother bidding.
Anonymity Challenges for Large Donors: While Tornado Cash (which wasn't sanctioned at the time) allowed some degree of privacy, it wasn’t practical for whales who wanted to donate millions. Large transactions would still be traceable, deterring high-profile bidders.
A Custom Auction Platform: Since Censored.art was a bespoke platform specifically set up for this auction, it may have been unfamiliar to some collectors and investors, limiting participation.
Winning the Auction and Fund Distribution As expected, AssangeDAO won the auction, as there were no serious competing bidders. The final amount raised on Juicebox was 17,593 ETH, but Juicebox took a 5% fee, leaving a net 16,593 ETH (~$54 million at the time).
Pak received the funds and, a month later, donated them to Wau Holland Foundation’s multi-signature wallet, which would be responsible for administering Assange’s legal defense fund.
The Impact of AssangeDAO: A DAO With Real-World Consequences AssangeDAO was one of the few DAOs that had a direct and tangible impact on a major global issue. Unlike many blockchain projects that remain theoretical or speculative, this DAO contributed to the legal battle that ultimately led to Julian Assange’s freedom.
A critical aspect of this success was its grassroots nature. The movement wasn’t led by institutions or corporations—it was powered by over 10,000 individual contributors who believed in Assange’s cause.
The NFT and Its Current Status The NFT itself was designed to count the number of days Assange was imprisoned. However, Pak was responsible for manually updating it daily. As of now, it hasn’t been updated in 19 days, meaning it should display "101 days" (counting the days of Assange’s freedom). Hopefully, Pak will update it soon to reflect the correct number.
DAO Treasury and Legal Expenses To clarify, the AssangeDAO wallet is separate from the Wau Holland Foundation wallet. Many media reports mistakenly assume they are the same. As of now, the AssangeDAO wallet still holds 198 ETH.
Since the fundraising campaign, 12,911 ETH has been spent on legal expenses, based on transactions from Wau Holland’s multi-sig wallet. This was also corroborated by a transparency report they released after external pressure.
Funds have been used for:
UK High Court proceedings (as seen in the complex legal diagram)
Preparations for the European Court of Human Rights
Legal battles in Spain and the U.S.
Political advocacy in Australia
Negotiations with the U.S. government, including the ongoing plea agreement discussions
While Wau Holland hasn’t publicly detailed every transaction, these are the legal efforts that have been widely acknowledged as benefiting from the DAO’s funds.
A major issue Assange DAO faced over the last two years relates to the bid itself. This is why I showed the bidding strategy and timeline—because initially, we were quite unified as a group, both those who donated and the core team. However, a key division emerged during the auction regarding our strategy.
The fundamental question was: Was this a max bid? Did we form a collective solely to bid the entire treasury on the NFT? Or was this DAO supposed to be a long-term entity, using its treasury strategically to support Julian’s cause in multiple ways?
This split only became fully apparent during the auction, after it had already started. We even attempted to get the auction delayed, but that was not possible. The challenge was that we couldn’t consult the Justice token holders in time due to the constraints of the auction’s schedule. Even after the token lock period, there simply wasn’t enough time to ask 10,000 contributors what the bidding strategy should be before the auction ended.
By the time we realized there were no real competitors—except Jesse Powell’s bid of 4,000 ETH—we had to decide: Should we bid just enough to win, or should we bid the full 16,000 ETH, using the entire treasury?
This decision struck at the heart of what it means to be a DAO. A DAO is supposed to be an ongoing organization that makes decisions collectively. But in this case, we had to bypass that structure due to the urgency of the moment. Ultimately, the max bid was placed. Interestingly, the people who supported the max bid—five key individuals—left immediately after the auction.
There are valid arguments on both sides of this debate.
Arguments for the Max Bid:
It was clearly communicated that all funds would be used for the NFT purchase. Some tweets explicitly stated this.
During the critical days of the auction, our website was repeatedly taken down, Discord became unmanageable, and state actors or other groups interfered in disruptive ways. The DAO’s transparency made it vulnerable. Many key members were doxxed, creating personal security risks.
Moving the funds to the Wau Holland Foundation as quickly as possible ensured they would be within a proper legal structure and protected from external threats.
The complexity of Julian’s case meant that even $54 million might not be enough to secure his release. It was vital to ensure these funds were entirely allocated to that goal.
Wau Holland had the infrastructure and experience to manage these funds effectively, as they had been handling Assange-related legal defense funds since 2019.
Arguments Against the Max Bid:
The goal of the DAO was not just to buy an NFT that doesn’t even update properly and could be replicated with a single line of bash code. It was to free Julian by any means necessary.
DAOs are meant to be decentralized and transparent, while a foundation like Wau Holland operates in a more opaque manner, which contradicts the principles of Web3.
The 10,000 contributors included highly skilled technical individuals who could have contributed to Julian’s case in other impactful ways. The DAO could have acted as a decentralized force, free from bureaucratic limitations.
Justifying the $54 million NFT purchase as a PR move was questionable. While it generated media coverage in Forbes, WIRED, and other outlets, this publicity should not have pressured the DAO into spending its entire treasury.
The decision to place the max bid ultimately disregarded the DAO’s governance process. While there was an attempt to put the decision to a vote, the governance structure included a Consensus Unit for review, which required approval to proceed. The proposal was blocked by two members, and a third member abstained, preventing it from moving forward.
At the time, in 2022, the tools necessary to support someone as persecuted as Julian simply didn’t exist within the DAO ecosystem. This realization influenced the decision-making process.
Over the past two years, a major challenge Assange DAO faced wasn’t just the bidding strategy but also interference from external forces. Our infrastructure was repeatedly taken down, governance issues arose, and our Discord was attacked. DAO members faced threats, and one member was even hospitalized for several months. Misinformation campaigns spread, making it difficult to correct false media narratives.
Since the DAO was permissionless, disputes emerged, and some individuals joined whose involvement later proved problematic. This added to the difficulties in maintaining clarity and transparency.
One of the biggest issues was the lack of information about the funds. When we placed the bid and purchased the NFT, the administration of the funds was handed over. We expected regular updates on how the money was being used, but those updates never came.
For two years, I felt a moral obligation to provide DAO contributors with updates, but I had no information to share. There were reasons for this—Julian’s case was ongoing, and revealing financial details prematurely could have jeopardized legal efforts.
However, after Julian was freed on June 24th, a preliminary transparency report was finally published. From that report, it became clear that 12,000 ETH had been spent, and on-chain transactions showed consistent offboarding of funds. At the time, accusations against Assange DAO of a “rug pull” arose because people saw the Ethereum multisig wallet transactions but didn’t know where the funds were going.
Originally, the treasury was valued at $56 million, but during the crypto winter, the value dropped. The report confirmed that 12,000 ETH was converted into €16 million for legal fees and campaign costs. The Wau Holland Foundation only received the funds on March 13th, by which point the treasury’s value had already declined to $42 million. Additionally, there was no treasury management in place, meaning the ETH was not actively managed or protected against market fluctuations.
I am making this presentation because I believe these matters should be clarified for the 10,000 contributors to the DAO. Despite years of trying to obtain answers, I received a message in August stating there was "no need for coordination at this time" when I requested a call for updates.
Currently, there are still remaining funds. At the time of Julian’s release, there were 700 ETH more in the treasury than there are today. As of now, 3,681 ETH remain. Wau Holland took a 5% administrative fee (around $2 million), and they also set aside a reserve, but the purpose of that reserve remains unclear.
The preliminary report states that these reserves were used for travel expenses, infrastructure, and office costs. However, with no treasury management in place, the remaining funds continue to be spent, and there has been no clear explanation of where the money is going. Even after Julian’s release, funds are still flowing out of the treasury every few weeks. Until August, this was explained as delayed legal fee payments, but it remains unclear why withdrawals have continued since then.
Now that Julian is free, the DAO needs to decide what happens next. There is still around $500,000 (200 ETH) left in the treasury. The future of these funds must be determined. Julian was deeply interested in the DAO when it was created, and many in the community hope he will re-engage.
A proposal has been made suggesting that Assange DAO could serve as a platform for others to speak on his behalf, given the restrictions he now faces. Some in the community have also suggested alternative uses for the DAO’s resources.
The discussion continued with a question about the potential funding of Cipherpunk projects aligned with Assange. Some suggested simply liquidating the funds, but at this moment, the DAO is undergoing restructuring. The goal is to implement a governance model that aligns with the technology available in 2024 and to address the question of what to do now that the mission—to free Julian Assange—has been accomplished. The community is encouraged to participate in this decision.
Following the presentation, a participant asked whether there was something unique about the NFT that influenced KYC requirements. They pointed out that the Valhalla Foundation has a multisig and questioned why the DAO didn’t simply send funds there directly, avoiding the auction process with its 5% fee. In response, it was clarified that the NFT was prepared by Assange himself, and that raising funds directly for the foundation would have required KYC from all contributors. In 2024, on-chain KYC solutions exist, but at the time of the fundraising, anonymity was a concern. Additionally, using centralized exchanges or banks would have created complications, as many require clear source-of-funds documentation. Without it, liquidity options would be restricted to over-the-counter deals, which would complicate the process of paying lawyers.
Another question was raised regarding the ongoing Tornado Cash case and whether there were similarities between that situation and AssangeDAO’s fundraising efforts. The response clarified that at the time of the fundraiser, Tornado Cash was still legal, allowing donors to maintain their privacy. However, since then, it has been sanctioned, and its developers are facing legal consequences for allegedly enabling money laundering. This crackdown has had a chilling effect on developers working on privacy tools. It was emphasized that AssangeDAO’s case is different—it was an impact DAO raising funds for a legal defense, whereas Tornado Cash was a privacy tool that authorities targeted due to its broader implications.
One participant sought clarification on the auction process, specifically asking what would have happened if the maximum bid had not been placed. The explanation was that in such a scenario, the winning bid would have been just above the second-highest bid, following the standard auction mechanism. The remaining funds would have stayed with the DAO, and the community would have had the ability to vote on their allocation—whether to return them to donors, keep them in the treasury, or fund other Cypherpunk initiatives. This would have allowed payments to be made directly to lawyers and campaigns without the bureaucratic hurdles of legacy institutions.
A participant who had given a presentation the previous day mentioned interest in writing an "Assange for Babies" book, humorously adding a disclaimer that it might not be suitable as a bedtime story due to its potentially distressing themes. They also provided additional context about the Valhalla Foundation. Named after Wau Holland, a co-founder of the Chaos Computer Club in the 1980s, the foundation has played a crucial role in accepting donations for WikiLeaks since 2009, even before the banking blockade. The foundation's lawyers were targeted, including Baltasar Garzón, a former Spanish judge whose offices were broken into. Given these past threats, it was understandable that some information remained undisclosed.
The conversation then turned to whether the Valhalla Foundation could now simply transfer funds directly to Assange for his personal use. Another question raised the idea of auctioning the NFT again, given that it had originally sold for 17,000 ETH but now had bids as low as 0.07 ETH. It was acknowledged that relisting the NFT was a possibility, but the auction had caused significant complications for the DAO, and the focus was currently on governance improvements. The NFT and the remaining 200 ETH were still in the DAO’s multisig, and the speaker encouraged community members to propose solutions."