The current voting system gets the job done, but does not gamify the process enough in my opinion. I think the better option is to start with a set of projects and have them compete for the DAOs votes in a bracket based system.
Similar to a sports tournament, we would have 6 to 8 projects go head to head, and the DAO would vote each round to move projects forward. Eventually, JUP DAO will have it’s winner after multiple votes. I think the below process will make voting more engaging and give everyone the needed entertainment value that the process is sorely missing. This process would also make it clear on what projects should be brought forward for the next LFG candidate voting round.
this is perfect if you want to provide “entertainment”.
But let’s think a bit what happens if two strong projects fight in one bracket at the first round and two weak projects fight against each other. At the end of the entertainment we can have one strong and one weak project insted of 2 strong
We would just seed the projects after their introductions prior to the vote. Should be pretty obvious at that point on which projects we think are the strongest.
I agree that the voting process can definitely be enhanced in ways to keep folks more involved and informed about the projects they are voting on. And based on some conversations in discord, that whole voting process is definitely going to undergo significant changes.
The current voting process had a 24hr? voting period i believe. In this type of system do you anticipate the same for each of the rounds? Is that extra requirement potentially creating additional friction for DAO voters?
I think the 24 hour timeframe is still doable with this process. The AMAs would be the most pressing thing, and you could span those across multiple days to keep the community engaged. I think it’s pretty clear that most JUP DAO members are actively monitoring LFG activity. Elongating the process would be beneficial to the community and add some excitement to the voting.
Having the project compete in a sense should place most of the pressure on the project itself. Which is a great way to see how they perform under pressure. Running a web3 project is pure chaos.
I do like the approach and how further rounds earn more exposure with introducing the project. But there are a few complications that we would need to consider;
This is a valid point and even if you go with @Cortezz suggestion for a double elimination bracket, what we have then is another problem with a flood of voting frequency that will backlog or require change to the queue and execution times.
In short – this will create voting congestion as what would otherwise take a single vote, is now requiring 4-8x more, and there is a execution time delay that would likely need adjustment.
Placement seeding isn’t going to provide for equal opportunity to each project, and promotes a rather competitive sentiment between two projects that are head to head. We want projects to highlight what is best about their own project, and not encourage a kind of political-sparring match between candidates (which i think should also be renamed to ‘Applicants’). At current, it wouldn’t make sense for any single applicant to try undermine confidence in the other 3 applicants in a round – that would only ostracize themselves. Yet, if you change this to a head-to-head format – then we encourage the disposition of toxic behaviors. Such as, crapping on the “opponents” project instead of promoting ones own project. Most teams are somewhat beyond that immaturity, but some aren’t and certainly not general community members.
This approach requires that there are more applicants to fill-out the starting round, sometimes we may not have the applicant numbers to kick-off the tournament leading to delays. Yes, could run with odd numbers and automate a project to the next round, but then how do you determine which project gets that privilege on top of the added opportunity to highlight more about the proejct (AMA, ect). We run into favoritism issues, with odd numbers – or delay issues with empty slots.
With increased voting frequencies and applicants, it is essentially asking more of the voters time for no greater improvement to the rewards for voters. With a bracket style, double the applicants and single execution queue, its almost asking voters to take on a part-time job just to stay informed and not miss a vote. We can’t really expect people to give up so much more of their time each month for no greater compensation. And to say perhaps that we should simply be more active and enthused, the reality is not all have the time for it with responsibilities and priority’s.
I do like this as it would be more entertaining which is good for engagement, but in practical terms for what we’re trying to achieve, its very cumbersome and inefficient. Also, because of the format of brackets, we’re kind of limited then to either 4 or 8 slots, which does not give flexibility to occasions where we have more or less applicants.
What I would instead suggest, is to allow voting power to be distributed by the individual over 1 or more selections, and by the individuals preferred weighting to each.
E.g
Your Total VP: 1000
(select one or multiple).
Project A. - 30% of VP
Project B. - 20% of VP
Project C - 15% of VP
Project D - 35% of VP
each slot would have a slider bar to allocate how much VP you wish to that project. Voters can opt to allocate all their VP to one project, or spread to any number of the others.
This way we accommodate preferential voting into the single vote simultaneously, which would provide a much more accurate representation of the communities sentiment towards each project. Effectively getting the same outcome as a bracket format without overburdening voters and workgroup coordinations.
Great post. I like the way you laid this out and can appreciate the cons for this type of voting. I do think that that everyone likes the option to span out their votes over more than 1 candidate. This seems like the obvious way to go, even if the bracket based system would provide better entertainment value!
I dont think the projects need to audition for the dao to be engaged, further that mentality leads to ass kissing by candidates . Also, if a pattern of competition goes beyond being the best of the best that usually comes at a cost to jup to the other lfgs to the lfg community ahead, theres no need to design an environment that places expectations on candidates before theyve even spoken in AmA. Only to get 1 launch out of a huge bracket, this idea seems to me like more rules and proceedings for less for those who arent winners out the gate.
Based off my reading, theres decades to go and the journey is only beginning, on top of thoughtful good intentions undoubtedly with considerable experience were here now its put in place prior to us all locking up Jup in order to participate. Its not complicated today, why create unnecessary competition and complexity in selecting who gets to go where, why vote 2 3 5 times when its obvious that if candidates do not have the necessary % of the dao vote then its obvious the interest on Jupiter just isnt there and the launch may not get the community users using the product.
for those who arent winners out the gate.
how to avoid that?