Yes I believe it will happen before their cliff, it’s being mentioned afaik.
For the quarterly reports, for us we have been doing Community Cat Chats, all recorded and also summarised, every quarter where we go through most those things you mentioned + others and preview of future plans, so yes, we do do them, have done 3 so far, they are also linked in the proposal.
Yeah, clicked on those 3 chat links. Only one leads to a recording. The first two are dead ends.
I’m more looking for concise, written reports that can be easily located and referenced. Don’t want to have to wade through a recording every time I need to find a piece of info (though the time stamps on that last one are helpful).
Your reply doesn’t address an accounting of expenditures and account balances.
Building a WG like CAWG around a product—one that not only engages but inspires loyalty to the point where it becomes part of people’s identity—is an incredibly difficult feat. It requires vision, relentless effort, and an ability to earn trust in a way that few can. Motivating people, keeping them focused, and fostering a sense of shared purpose is no small task, and those who achieve it deserve recognition. I truly believe that’s what @julianhzhu & Co have achieved here.
There can, of course, be a fair debate about the extent of that recognition and how rewards should be structured. But what shouldn’t be in question is that such an achievement warrants acknowledgment. So, while you should absolutely voice any concerns you may have, I encourage you to also recognise the significance of what’s been accomplished—and vote in favour. That’s my final take on this🙏🏿
The 312,000 USDC for 5 people feels excessive compared to the 150,000 USDC for hundreds. Wouldn’t it be more “decentralized” to pay leaders less and give more to the Catdets who sustain the community? The ratio smells like disguised hierarchy.
The 750,000 JUP, even with vesting, is a jackpot for the CAWG. If JUP hits $5 (possible in a 2025 bull run), that’s $750,000 per head—does their work justify that value against the stakers who fund it?
The irony: a DAO promising “aggressive decentralization” funnels 67% of the USDC into 5 wallets. Where’s the “power to the people” when the chefs serve themselves first?
As a Solana and DeFi expert, I’d say this budget has potential but limps on ethical execution. Community incentives and JUP integration are steps toward a vibrant Jupiverse, something Solana—with its speed and community—can make shine. But 312,000 USDC and 750,000 JUP for 5 people is a luxury the DAO shouldn’t indulge without clear ROI metrics (e.g., TVL, JUP usage). It’s not outright theft from stakers—the vesting curbs that—but it’s a nod to personal comfort over collective good. My vote would be a conditional “yes”: approve it, but demand quarterly reports and redirect more USDC to the community. Decentralization isn’t a speech; it’s a practice, and there’s room to improve here. 
My vote is against, this type of $$$ sums dont make any sense, even if/when vested. But thanks for your proposal and your hard work. I wish you good luck. If I can offer you a suggestion which in my case may come off as more atractive, I would not request such a high amount but instead I would break the project down into miloestones and draft it to apply to it as micro grants. This is a huge amount of money regardless of the goal.also the proposal itself has many weak points, just to name one SCALING, second is budget breakdown allocation and expense forecast breakdown by milestones or project phases… IMO if you are requesting this AMOUNT you must have 1: a full breakdown of the cost (detailed), second this type of compensation values require further and deeper understanding, for example just because you have 3 members in US that doesnt mean you should take the average salary for that person role in the us but instead you need to average it out between the highest and the lowest and comeup with an average. also 5200 even in the US is not normal. I work for a us company and have SR role in mangement, i make 6k plus bonuses, 5200 base sounds crazy. specially for product a single product development. nothing on the finances make sense TBH. the proposal itself is not bad, but the financial aspect of it is just wild.
This work group went to a vote last week, just FYI.
