Sooz Cube

Cedar DAO community, I can confirm that I have sent the following email to the law firms that claim to represent our project. This is the latest of many attempts to engage with them and resolve this situation. At this point, the community should be asking for evidence that firms being paid with resources intended for token holders are actually acting in their interests. ------------------- Dear Sirs, I have been advised to copy senior directors at your firm into this correspondence given the seriousness of the situation, the absence of any meaningful response over the past six months, and the escalating legal and reputational risk now attached to this matter. I understand that multiple Acting Committee members have reported to both Harneys and Horizons that they are also in direct opposition to Shawnte’s conduct. Despite this, there appears to have been little or no effective intervention. In the meantime, her continued publication and promotion of highly damaging and defamatory material (the latest available here: drive.google.com/file/d/1V4v_nC…) has, in my view, already resulted in tens of millions of dollars in losses to the community, alongside substantial personal and corporate damage to myself and Wallet Enterprises Ltd. It is now essential to establish, as a matter of urgency , whether this damage is the result of the unilateral actions of a single individual, or whether she is, as she continues to claim publicly, acting under the advice or with the support of one or both of your firms. At this stage, accountability can no longer be deferred. At the outset, it is important to restate a foundational point that has never been in dispute. While the project was always positioned as community-focused, and the token supply (with the exception of the clearly defined allocation to the founder and his team) was owned by the community, operational control was always separate. Marketing, development and operational responsibility sat with a defined operator, first the founder and subsequently a private company, with a specific budget allocated for that purpose. This distinction between community ownership of the token and privately controlled operations was clearly communicated, consistently understood, and formed the basis on which the project functioned from launch through to May 2025. I wish to draw your attention to a tweet that was published in September 2022 and remained online for 3 years that confirms these facts beyond refute: (see images) I am aware that the concept of “community ownership” is now being used to attempt to blur or override that distinction. That is a mischaracterisation. Community ownership of tokens and liquidity does not equate to community control over operations, nor does it provide a basis to retrospectively unwind or reassign operational authority that was clearly and publicly exercised by a private entity. Any attempt to conflate these two distinct concepts in order to justify retrospective intervention is, in my view, fundamentally flawed. I write to remind you of the underlying factual position. From late 2022 until May 2025, I was the CEO exercising operational control over the project’s marketing, development and operations through EverGrow Marketing Ltd. I was also the individual who assigned the mandate and responsibilities to what was deliberately described publicly as an interim or acting committee. That position was communicated clearly and repeatedly through public channels, including tweets and formal communications, examples of which are: (see images) "This week $EGC is officially moving under the ownership of our company EverGrow Marketing Ltd. Marketing funds will be moved to wallet address 0xd9996AB734C7dBBA1EFbb7298Bd0465c7E6D1C05 & the main team wallet will be moved to address 0x0fB4a0D1A629E8Bd38C9757296aE5A9F1C6C9E69" September 8th 2022 from official EGC account. The mandate given was limited, and specifically restricted to: - establishing the long-term DAO framework - reviewing and proposing a sustainable project budget - developing strategies to grow and engage the community That was the full scope. It was never broader than this. It was consistently and explicitly communicated that this committee was temporary in nature, and that once these objectives had been fulfilled and a proper governance framework was in place, the community would vote to appoint a permanent structure. In her report, Shawnte relies on the wording of a later vote which omits this clearly stated limitation, and attempts to use that omission as a basis to assert that the committee was granted full and unrestricted authority over all past, present, and future matters. As lawyers, you will appreciate that this is not a tenable position. The absence of a previously stated limitation in subsequent communications does not extinguish that limitation, nor does it create new powers that were never granted in the first place. The mandate did not evolve into something broader. It remained exactly as originally defined. I did not grant the committee, and certainly did not grant Shawnte individually, any authority to retrospectively examine, reinterpret, or attempt to override decisions made by the founder in 2021 or by EverGrow Marketing Ltd between 2022 and May 2025. Nor was any authority granted to reclassify privately held tokens, assert control over assets, or conduct what has now become a sustained and highly damaging public campaign against me and Wallet Enterprises Ltd. For more than six months, a single member of that committee has used the position and the resources entrusted to it to pursue what can only be described as a personal vendetta. In doing so, she has repeatedly attributed her actions to legal advice from one of your firms, thereby lending apparent legitimacy to statements and publications that are highly damaging and, in my view, clearly defamatory. Her document linked above demonstrates the false premise on which she is operating. For example, she states: “This reflects execution of the Committee’s responsibilities, not an expansion of its authority.” She further asserts: “As a result, the current Acting Committee derives its authority directly from a DAO-approved vote and is not operating under a limited or pre-defined ‘interim’ mandate.” And: “The Committee’s authority arises from governance participation and is exercised on behalf of the DAO and its stakeholders.” These statements are fundamentally incorrect and represent a clear mischaracterisation of the authority that was granted. The committee was deliberately framed and communicated as temporary and limited in scope - the fact that it is repeatedly and publicly referred to as the ‘Acting’ or ‘Interim’ committee puts all this beyond doubt. It was not given authority to revisit historical decisions, to redefine token ownership, or to assert powers over structures and allocations that pre-date both the committee and any functioning DAO framework. This false premise fatally undermines the entirety of her report and any actions taken on its basis. That position is not mine alone. Several elected committee members have contacted you directly to state that they do not support Shawnte’s actions, and the last remaining legitimate committee member, Marios, has publicly and unequivocally rejected the entire premise of this report, and confirmed that despite it being positioned as official committee business, it is simply a self-authored report being misrepresented as an official communication. The factual position is straightforward. Project operations, marketing and development operated privately from 2021 until at least May 2025. The founder was allocated founder and team tokens under the original white paper without restriction. Those tokens were under his discretion. Certain rights and tokens were subsequently transferred to me under a private arrangement, which has never been publicly disputed by the founder, nor has any allegation of wrongdoing ever been made. Shawnte is now attempting to retrospectively relabel those privately assigned tokens as community-owned, and to go further by asserting that originally unrestricted private tokens, issued in a project that had no governance or voting mechanism throughout its existence, should now be treated as non-voting. She then relies on that position to justify unilateral actions, suppress genuine community governance, and continue publishing damaging material while claiming legal backing. I have seen no evidence supporting this position. There is no document overriding the original allocation. There is no evidence establishing DAO ownership of those tokens. There is no document granting the committee the powers she claims. Indeed there isn’t even formal documentation confirming the transfer of assets or powers from EverGrow Marketing Ltd to the committee, because no such permanent transfer was ever intended. The arrangement was temporary, trust-based, and limited in scope for the purpose of delivering a future DAO structure. This is in contrast to the fact that there was public communication and indeed documentation proving beyond refute that EverGrow Marketing Ltd did have full operational control and full ownership over the assets that are currently being misappropriated and indeed being used to pay your fees. The consequences have been severe. Her report has been publicly promoted and pinned across social media channels my team built over many years, reaching tens of thousands of users, and presented as authoritative. The resulting harm to my professional reputation, to Wallet Enterprises LTD, and to the wider ecosystem is substantial and ongoing. I am also aware that there is overwhelming community opposition to her conduct, and that other committee members have publicly stated that they do not support her position and have raised concerns directly with legal representatives, including assertions that key facts have been misrepresented. In light of the above, I require urgent clarification on the following, supported in each case by the relevant documentary evidence: Advice and Positioning - Whether either of your firms has provided legal advice supporting the position that the committee has authority to retrospectively review and override decisions made by the founder in 2021 or EverGrow Marketing Ltd from 2022 to May 2025, and if so, please provide the written advice, opinion, or instruction evidencing that position. Token Classification - Whether either of your firms has advised that privately allocated founder or team tokens can be reclassified as community-owned, restricted, or stripped of governance rights absent any clear legal basis, and if so, please provide the legal analysis or documentation supporting that conclusion. Documentary Basis for Claims - What specific documentary evidence, if any, you have been provided with or have reviewed that would support: a) the alleged expansion of committee authority beyond its originally stated mandate b) any transfer, assignment, or vesting of assets from EverGrow Marketing Ltd to the committee or any DAO structure c) any legal basis for the reclassification or restriction of privately held tokensPlease provide copies of any such documents or identify them with sufficient particularity. Use of Your Firms’ Names - What steps, if any, you have taken to prevent your firms’ names from being used to legitimise public statements and publications that are causing substantial reputational and financial damage, and please provide any correspondence or instructions issued in this regard. Public Attribution of Your Advice - Whether either of your firms stands behind, and is willing to publicly confirm, the claims made by Shawnte in her report, which she has repeatedly attributed to your firms, and if so, please provide the documented basis upon which such support is given. Awareness and Independent Verification - Given that you have been made aware by multiple elected committee members that they do not support Shawnte’s actions, and that concerns have been raised regarding the accuracy of the information presented to you, what steps have you taken to independently verify the factual basis of the position being advanced, and please provide any records, notes, or correspondence evidencing that process. Ongoing Harm and Intervention - In light of your awareness of the ongoing publication of highly damaging material, and the significant losses already caused, what steps, if any, have been taken to mitigate or limit further harm pending proper verification of the underlying claims, and please provide any documented actions or advice issued in this regard. Engagement - Whether you are willing to engage directly with me without further delay to address these matters based on the actual factual and legal position, and to explain the basis for your firms’ refusal over the past six months to engage with the individual who proposed the DAO structure, assigned the committee its authority, and, as CEO of EverGrow Marketing Ltd, holds full legal authority over operations and assets, as confirmed by public announcements and documentary evidence. The powers and resources that were temporarily entrusted to the committee have, in my view, been misused and misappropriated. If your firms do in fact represent the interests of token holders, then you are expected to take appropriate steps to intervene in ongoing conduct that is causing clear and significant harm, and to engage with me without further delay. This situation has been allowed to continue unchecked for far too long. A single individual has been permitted to misuse her position, misrepresent the scope of her authority, attribute actions to legal advice, and cause substantial and ongoing damage. I now require a substantive response as a matter of urgency.

@CedarDAO Community: NOTICE OF MATERIAL GOVERNANCE DISCLOSURE: EVERGROW FOUNDER AND TEAM TOKENS Today I am publishing a disclosure to the DAO regarding information that may materially impact governance, voting power, and token classification. The DAO’s legal counsel advised that this information may be material and that the DAO should be made aware promptly. This issue arose independently as the Acting Committee was preparing to undertake a broader independent review and legal analysis of other governance matters (including prior proposals, asset conversions without formal agreements, intellectual property matters, and project ownership structure). This disclosure is focused specifically on EverGrow founder and team tokens due to its potential materiality and lack of prior DAO knowledge, this matter was prioritized. This notice has been prepared independently and in good faith as part of my fiduciary duty to the DAO as a United States citizen, to ensure the DAO is properly informed. As a final note, while I rarely disable comments, comments have been turned off for this post due to the sensitivity of this subject matter and out of respect for the DAO and its governance processes. To ensure questions are addressed clearly and consistently, please submit them via direct message as outlined in the closing section of the Notice. Responses will be compiled in writing so that the broader DAO remains informed. Read the full document here: drive.google.com/file/d/1V4v_nC…

@SamCKx @AtlasWallet Not sure how we can Believe this. Show us how much of the $1.2M is left to cover ongoing costs and what your predicted costings are going forward. Dragged out beyond imagination.