So what will happen now? We simply wait for the vote to go live and vote?
My personal opinion is to simply skip that part and team should come up with a clear statement and criteria without anything shady or some unspoken parts left for the imagination of the community and then make the vote (if they want another Jupuary ofc, if they don’t then leaving it the way it is now is perfect).
I very do like the KYC idea to make sure people claiming are not bots. But tbh, so many people will fud and it’s the opposite idea of blockchain when providing IRL info and losing this anonymous DNA feels from crypto world… kinda mitigated here
The only fudders will be the ones who either farmed or had bots.
Are people really concerned about giving KYC info to jup team?
They ain’t the feds guys (maybe just @0xSoju ) 
It’s not really about sybils or bots. Those who sybilled will sybil those measures as well most likely - the thing is that historically such moves have never had a good impact on the projects and the affected ones will be the ordinary users. After all that’s personal data and there are leaks happening every day (hope it doesn’t happen here if such measures are applied) and some people might not want to doxx themselves for X amount of money.
Updated with short text and link to the voting statistics.
Thanks for amount of time and effort you put into this. Pretty much all the info needed to stay informed in one post. Hope others appreciate the value you bring to the community.
Can you say more what type of proof of humanity will be needed
I recently mentioned that, even if this information is requested, it will be handled confidentially and discreetly, ensuring it is only used for its intended purpose. The team has also confirmed that they will not retain the information beyond what is necessary. Mei reiterated this assurance during the last planetary call, which reinforces the safeguards in place. I fail to see an issue here—if a team needs to verify your identity before granting a reward and guarantees that your information will be used solely for this purpose, I see no harm in that.
No issues except had to do a proof of humanity before and needed like certain criteria met like an nft or other conditions, can’t remember a few years back now. Am all for it if it could be done via google signup or something like that.
Surely you couldn’t do it in another way right?
All jokes aside, once you start dealing with customer data you have a whole heap of legal issues to deal with which I believe JUP is not ready for.
It really boils down to what do you mean by verify identity. Is it just an email or are you looking for name/date of births? The former is a trivial task whereas the latter is a massive headache.
In either case I think collecting user’s personal data in this space is not really something we should be pushing for. It is your choice to make being in the limelight and letting yourself be known but I don’t think you should gate a gift behind this criteria.
It’s a similar argument to one of privacy where if you got nothing to hide you got nothing to fear…
Sure they will figure out something that’s not too intrusive or legally burdensome as you highlighted but either way like you said, if you ‘got nothing to hide’ and if you are being offered a fairly good reward and all what you need to do is to proof somehow that you are who you are, I have no qualms with that.
Implementing KYC on a DEX like Jupiter can help detect sybil wallets, enhancing security and preventing fraud. However, it also blurs the line between a DEX and a CEX, compromising anonymity and decentralization. Jupiter might gain some compliance benefits but lose out on the core advantages of a DEX, such as privacy and true decentralization, making it less attractive to those who value these features. Moreover, Jupiter could still lack advanced CEX features like high liquidity, extensive trading tools, and dedicated customer support, leading to a suboptimal hybrid experience
What is the main argument for doing KYC? Detecting sybils? If you stick to a linear rewarding scheme then sybil detection won’t matter as much.
All KYC is doing is trying to solve the problem of wanting to reward per user basis not per wallet basis but if you set your criteria right you shouldn’t have a problem rewarding 1 user with 100k vs 1 1 user with 100k wallets with value 1.
If you believe it’s solving something else then would be interested to hear those reasons but as it stands don’t really see the benefit of doing KYC especially when I think you’d have to do more than email verification if you actually want to prevent all the issues mentioned around fraud/sybil/…
I have clearly outlined specifically the conditions under which I, personally, would be willing to accept KYC. My comments are limited to my own perspective within that context and do not extend beyond that. If verifying my identity is a prerequisite for receiving a reward, I am personally comfortable with it. However, I understand and respect that others may feel differently, and the decision is ultimately theirs to make.
Aren’t we in the end trying to see what would be best moving forward for everyone? Although it’s good to hear what your view is given your own context I think it would be even better to try to generalize and see if that can fit into a wider context.
Would it be beneficial for KYC to be conducted for Jupuary? That’s the question we would be trying to answer. The answer to your own personal circumstances is a yes (under limited scope of what KYC entails) but more importantly should this be applied and mandated to all users?
My first instinct is a resounding no. Any problem that was mentioned that KYC would better be solved through alternative methods. KYC has no place in a DEX.
Food for thought but if we are to consider KYC wouldn’t even be better to KYC to vote for the DAO? Or for users to need to disclose on this forum their holdings and wallets so we can know how they are voting and why they are advocating in certain ways?
Agree - cos the nature of our exchange at the moment is interpersonal, I had to express my position which is what I have done.
Everyone is free to express their view on this and if there is some process to decide the outcome, I am always an advocate for agreeing with the majority so it doesn’t matter for me, I will align where the majority does but my vote will be as stated in my earlier correspondence within that specific context.
I respect your opinion!
I don’t think this is how the DAO should operate (similar to how you put it though, this is my personal opinion).
What I think we should look instead is to disagree and commit. Agreeing with the majority brings no positives and just leads to herd mentality.
“Disagree and commit” and “agreeing with the majority” are not necessarily at odds in the context of a DAO. The purpose of a DAO is to create a democratic process where diverse views are debated, ideas are shared and decisions are made collectively through voting. Once a vote is concluded, the majority decision reflects the DAO’s will, not herd mentality, but the collective conviction of its members.
While disagreement fosters innovation and avoids echo chambers, once the majority speaks, committing to the decision ensures the DAO remains effective and united. Without this commitment, decisions lose legitimacy and the DAO risks stagnation. Debate vigorously, vote your conviction, then align with the outcome; that’s the strength of a DAO.
Having something similar but not the same as kyc could solve the verification process. As stated the aim is not to gather information as this would be deleted afterwards anyways, but to simply make sure multiple wallets are not trying to game the airdrop.
Kyc is usually done by cex’s involving all users to conform to regulatory rules set by different countries. This looks to be very different.
I disagree on this point. Majority of the vote is not the same as majority of the support by its members. Simply because not all member’s votes are equal so it’s a bit nuanced to argue that point as what you are essentially agreeing is to the majority of the votes but not the majority of the people.
Hum it is an interesting point but I would say they are at odds but it depends on how you are viewing it.
First, you would have to specify at which point you are “agreeing” with the majority. It is a common theme in different threads and comments that a lot of users are agreeing before they even have a think (i.e this is herd mentality).
If, however, you “agree” after the vote is concluded then you would in your realm of agreement with the majority which I would still argue is dangerous. Setting the mentality as agreeing with the majority almost (or essentially really) implies that once the vote is made you should stick to it’s and actually believe in it. That is not the same as committing.
You can commit to a decision and still wholeheartedly disagree with it.
Putting in other words, if you had to codify one of these sentiments into JUP’s values I’d say it is important to be on the side of the disagree and commit and not agree with the majority.
A small point to make but the devil is in the details but I think as a community it is up to us to uphold ourselves to these standards and not take shortcuts in thinking.