CEDAR DAO OFFICIAL SOCIAL CHANNELS RESTORED We are pleased to confirm that the official Cedar DAO Telegram and Discord are now back under the administration of longstanding and trusted members of the community team who managed these channels throughout the EverGrow years. • Since the launch of Cedar DAO, our social channels came under the control of a single individual without any recognised authority or mandate to assume that control, contrary to the community-led spirit upon which Cedar was established. • During this period, strong concerns were raised by the community regarding the use of the channels in ways contrary to the interests of Cedar holders. Longstanding supporters were muted or removed, while parties openly hostile to the project were allowed to remain active and exert significant influence over the community discussion. • Both the Telegram and Discord have now been fully archived, preserving a complete record of this period should it be required for future scrutiny. • We would particularly like to thank Discord for their assistance in restoring the Discord server to community administration, following a period in which control of this community-owned asset was being withheld by an individual without a clear community mandate. • The trusteeship does not intend to have any ongoing role in the day-to-day moderation of either channel. Our objective was to secure the channels and return them to trusted members of the community as quickly as possible. That objective has now been achieved. The Cedar community has its socials back.

Cedar DAO - Some incredibly concerning information has come to light over the past 24 hours regarding interim committee member Shawnte Thompson, President of Brigadier Construction Services. Public records indicate that both Shawnte Thompson and Brigadier Construction Services have been involved in a series of significant legal disputes spanning multiple years, including federal litigation. Notably, one case involves claims in excess of $24 million and was active during the Cedar DAO interim committee election process, yet was not disclosed at that time. Further to this, at least two additional lawsuits have been filed against Shawnte Thompson and/or Brigadier Construction Services during her tenure on the Cedar interim committee. Given the scale, duration, and timing of these matters, and the fact that this information was not disclosed to token holders during the election process, this raises serious questions around transparency. It also raises questions regarding the subsequent due diligence we were informed was carried out on elected members, and potential professional negligence in that process. The absence of this information at the point of voting calls into direct question the validity and integrity of her election to the interim committee, and deprived members of the opportunity to decide whether someone with a background involving serious financial issues was an appropriate representative for a position carrying significant powers and responsibilities. trellis.law/case/39153/cv-20… trellis.law/case/39153/cv-20… dockets.justia.com/docket/oh… dockets.justia.com/docket/oh… dockets.justia.com/docket/oh… dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/O… govinfo.gov/app/details/USCO…

To address @_CedarSteve and the Cedar DAO community, Firstly, Steve, thank you and everyone else who has continued to show faith in me over the years, despite everything. I believe most people recognise that I’ve always been here for this community, and that my work on Atlas is driven by one thing: delivering what this community deserves after its long-term support and patience. Even after stepping away from the token project, I never stopped working for this community. For over six months behind the scenes, I’ve made repeated attempts to resolve what are, in my view, totally illogical, unnecessary and self-inflicted issues created by the interim committee, largely driven by a single individual. I believe this has already caused tens of millions of dollars in damage. As former CEO of EverGrow Marketing Ltd and current CEO of Wallet Enterprises Ltd, I have repeatedly reached out to the two law firms retained by Cedar DAO to try to resolve matters. It makes no sense that lawyers claiming to represent this community would refuse to engage with the CEO of the company that ran operations and had the authority to grant the committee its limited mandate. When genuine attempts to resolve issues are ignored, it raises serious questions. To me, that is negligent and clearly not in the interests of token holders. That said, my focus has never changed. Everything I’ve done, including months of work behind the scenes, has been about what is best for this community. Many of you know that, and I appreciate those who have recognised it. I have been reluctant to step forward. But given where we are, if the community supports it, I am willing to take on a temporary role as chairman of the interim committee. My objective would be simple: fully audit the situation, understand where resources have gone over the last ten months, review all costs and obligations, and help transition to a properly elected committee focused on token holders, not personal agendas. I still believe this project can succeed. That’s why I’ve never walked away. Given the collapse in governance and the damage done, Steve’s proposal may now be the most practical path forward. If the community supports it, I will step in on a strictly temporary basis. This would be an unpaid role, limited to the minimum time required to stabilise the situation and reset governance properly. I would not remain in this role once Atlas Wallet goes live. The decision now sits with the community. But let me be clear: I have never left, and my commitment has never wavered. It is incredibly difficult to watch a project that had over $40 million in value when I handed it over ten months ago be driven to this point by actions that run directly against the interests of token holders. But recovery is still possible, if we act now. If Steve’s proposal is supported, I will do everything I can to fix this and put us back in a position to succeed ahead of the Atlas launch. We Are Cedar.

Investigation into potential criminal conduct from Cedar DAO interim committee Background On 14 August 2025, 98% of voters approved a very specific wage proposal. The proposal named individual staff members and set their weekly wages. It was explicitly communicated to the community that these would be the only wages paid by the project, and that committee participation itself was a voluntary role. nation.io/a/CedarDAO_/propos… To go back further, the Legacy Operations wallet was funded 291 days ago, on 18 May, with $161,030: bscscan.com/tx/0x555b707dc60… It also received 400 BNB (approximately $251,279), bringing total funding to approximately $412,309 at today’s value: bscscan.com/tx/0x80b4372ce39… Today the wallet contains 117 BNB (approximately $73,832.88) and $61,410 in stablecoins, totalling roughly $135,242. That represents a reduction of approximately $277,067 in just ten months. And this is only the BSC operations wallet. Thousands more have also been spent from the project’s SOL-based operations wallet. Funds have been moved from the Legacy BSC operations wallet: bscscan.com/address/0x3ccc1f… to this intermediary wallet: bscscan.com/address/0x8e55a1… and then on to three recipient wallets. Only three wallets have been receiving salaries for the last several months. We have now been made aware that these belong to two committee members and one community team member. Wallet 1 This wallet was originally receiving $225 per week. 92 days ago it received $1,125 63 days ago it received $1,500 37 days ago it received $1,500 9 days ago it received $1,500 This effectively increased the payment to $281.25 per week for four weeks and then to $375 per week for the last three months. bscscan.com/address/0x8b0944… Wallet 2 This wallet followed the same pattern of increases. bscscan.com/address/0x82e693… Wallet 3 This wallet began receiving $1,500 payments (equivalent to $375 per week) 63 days ago and has received three payments of $1,500. bscscan.com/address/0xF2ce5F… In addition, 92 days ago four payments of $1,125 were made. This payment structure was never disclosed to the community and was never authorised by any DAO vote. Conclusion Just over 100 days after the community explicitly authorised wages for specific personnel performing specific roles, several of those personnel were unilaterally dismissed without any DAO vote. Their wages were then redirected to two committee members and one additional staff member. The amounts being paid to those three individuals are approximately 67% higher than the wage originally authorised by the DAO for community work, with committee work itself being strictly voluntary, and unpaid. The defence offered is that “a lawyer”, paid for by the community, advised one committee member that she was permitted to do this. The other committee members state they have not seen this legal advice. Legal considerations Regardless of whether someone claims to have received legal advice, the actions described above raise serious potential legal issues. Independent review suggests the following risks may arise depending on jurisdiction and legal structure: Misappropriation of funds Treasury funds authorised for specific recipients and purposes appear to have been redirected without governance approval. Embezzlement Individuals entrusted with control of community funds may have diverted those funds for personal compensation without authorisation. Fraud or misrepresentation If the community was told that only the approved wages would be paid while different payments were being made privately, that may constitute fraudulent conduct. Breach of fiduciary duty Committee members exercising control over treasury funds may owe fiduciary duties to the community. Redirecting those funds for personal benefit without authorisation could constitute a breach. Unjust enrichment Receiving financial benefit from funds that were never authorised for those recipients may also create civil liability. Key point One committee member claims that an unnamed lawyer advised that these actions were permissible. However, independent research strongly suggests that unilaterally dismissing staff, redirecting treasury funds, and increasing personal compensation without a DAO vote exposes those responsible to significant legal risk. If a lawyer the community is paying for has really given this advice, then I urge the remaining members of the committee to publish the lawyer's name, the name of their firm, the jurisdiction they are licensed to practise law, and copies of the specific communications in which this advice was given.

As of this moment, there are over 200 holders of @CedarDAO with at least $10,000 in $CDR (minimum ~265,000 CDR). This has been growing steadily since launch. I'd take this as a positive sign. Cedar Fever.