I am not concerned, I am suggesting that transparency has more weight than voting power. I personally think there should be a larger budget and increased salaries, maybe add milestones for the unlocking larger allocations or extending the term or both. The working groups have obviously performed well and proven their value. I believe they should be seeking a larger and longer-term allocation. I think the community as whole would agree and support the larger allocation and a longer term with measurable goals and milestones for additional token unlocks including more details on the value added by a larger allocation. A larger voting power by the working groups doesn’t add any inherent value to the DAO and in fact lowers the weight of those voting on the proposal. A one-year budget with some maybes and no explanation for the use of the funds, then justifying the allocation by a desire for larger voting power? It doesn’t have very much transparency. Does a larger weight help the working group’s ability to succeed in achieving specific goals ? Is the additional voting weight an incentive for the great work they have done? Do larger allocations give the team freedoms to explore new opportunities or partnerships, are increase salaries needed to retain or recruit top talent in the space, is there a plan to add specific positions or departments ? The focus should be on the value-added by a larger allocation. There is no need to justify salaries, or discuss any individuals holdings. That should be handled internally in the working group. Tell everyone why they should want to give you more.
2.5MJUP 12month no cliff seems reasonable
Why not put this to a vote starting from
A. 1.5M 9months no cliff
B. 2.5M 12 months 2month cliffs
C. 3.5, 12 month - 6 month cliff
4.5, 12 month - 6 month cliff
5M 24-month - 12 month cliff
It is better if votes are done every 6 months to allocate JUP in smaller batches mulitple times and not one time big time
This will encourage the voters for a higher allocation on every next votation when the CWG are delivering great vibes
We’re planning on putting a Discord poll out tomorrow with several options such as this tomorrow with a final yes/no vote. I like these numbers and will forward to chat.
However, I’m somewhat opposed to adding additional votes every 6 months. We’re already at 12 LFG votes alone per year, with one or two working groups, a vote every 6 months is very tenable, but if we have 20 working groups thats making the primary DAO function budget approvals rather than stewarding the launchpad.
However, I think this is a great question to chat about in the Town Hall, would love to have you ask it there.
Looks SOLID to me. I see a lot of thought has been put into LFG considerations for sure.
Only thing that’s still a bit unclear to me is the process of how projects get selected to get from proposal stage into the actual voting.
Thanks for the awesome reading.
I am very proud to be a part of the DAO with all of you
Cheers
This is straight up FACTS:100:
Not sure what happened to the Jup planetary call today on Luma but was lucky to follow up live on X. Brilliant conversation in general with Meow setting up bar really high for expectations followed by brilliant lay out of the goals and roles of the members of the CWG. Was nice to hear from all of them directly on what they are currently doing and what they have set to achieve. In all, brilliant call.
I find this Core Working Group’s plan very impressive i believe team expertise in the field promises a bright future for this project. It’s clear that with our collaborative efforts as catdets will drive meaningful change and even inspire users across the solana ecosystem, I have some points to make concerning :
1 -Risk management : as the CWG expands its operations and potentially hires additional members, i think it’s important to consider risk management strategies to mitigate potential conflicts of interest, ensur diversity and inclusion, and maintain alignment with the broader goals of the Jupiter project
2-Sustainability : I believe there should also be a long-term sustainability plan for the CWG and the Jupiter project as a whole, including strategies for revenue generation, partnership development with organizations, and communities within the solana realm and beyond can boost the impact of the CWGs efforts and host innovation, personal and impersonal development too
3-Education and Onboarding : Investing in educational resources and onboarding programs for new community members can help with increasing participation and a better understanding of the Jupiter ecosystem, empowering individuals to contribute meaningfully and responsibly
For the t community engagement and educational plans i would keep it concise and coherent so here are my suggestions :
• Make easy-to-understand guides about DeFi and blockchain.
• Hold fun workshops and online classes led by experienced members.
• Create step-by-step guides for new members.
• Plan fun events and learning challenges for the community.
• Adapt resources for different languages and cultures.
• Ask for feedback to improve our teaching. I’m suggesting this because i have been studying leadership and sociology and I’m certain of the fact that the exposure to formal environment in any community can sometimes be overwhelming for certain members, creating barriers to participation and engagement. Furthermore, i have been around in here for quite a while now and i see how new comers tend to have many confusions about the project which sometimes results in hesitant participation.
Good luck !!
Appreciate the quick response and information.
JUP…only UP 
Truly excited to be here at the forefront of what is being built here! My question is why the 12 month cliff on the 5 million JUP allocation? I am in favor of the CWG bringing on new talent and funding new initiatives. Why wait a year before those funds start becoming available for use? Or does the DAO have a separate treasury that will subsidize new CWG’s in the meantime?
I think JUP Token Allocation: 2.5M - 5M JUP is a lot, an increase is needed from the 60k.
We should take these decisions through the DAO, because 60k between the 4 of you is not enough and 2.5mil is a lot given the market conditions, where JUP could go to $10 and you guys get $25 million.
work 1 year and get at least 2.5M JUP? this is very huge bounus. I voted for longer vesting, so the team could aim longer.
Thank you to everyone involved in putting together this thoughtful proposal for funding the J.U.P Core Working Group (CWG). I fully support the initiative and the CWG’s objectives. However, I’m curious about the decision to set the funding period for 12 months initially. Have you considered starting with a 6-month pilot program? This approach could allow us to assess the impact and effectiveness of the CWG more flexibly. After this period, the DAO could re-evaluate and decide on its future direction and funding. Additionally, I’m interested in knowing if there’s a process for replacing core members during the program if they don’t reach the minimum expected. These points are my concerns and areas about which I would like to learn more.
Great feedback and valuable suggestions, thanks for taking your time to write this down! All duly noted.
300,000 JUP tokens to an Eth maxi that isn’t particularly active in Solana…crazy that the rich just get richer. It often feels like those that were in the crypto space and made it 8 years ago just keep piling on the wealth while newer people keep grinding for small numbers.
I will STRONGLY support Jup payouts to strong JUP community members such as the CWG working hard to build our ecosystem
Main target should be to get a big(ger) community that wil be sustaineble in the Solana-ecosystem. So I would approach this proposal not as a project but as a proces, This means there has to be a funding for the coming years.
grateful for Sol.Incinerator and so it’s gratifying to know Slorg’s on the team. this proposal overall is well laid out and informative. I also appreciate the opportunity to be involved in some small way and that my airdrop & purchases afford me these opportunities to have a say in development decisions
I’m not sure we both listened to the same call. What I heard was Meow say he’s, “nervous as fuck” about the upcoming budget vote. My guess would be because he knows they’re asking for a large personal allocation for each of the CWG members.
I also heard the four of them unable to concisely and accurately describe what their roles are. Who knows, maybe they were just caught off guard in the moment.
I think this proposal is too vague, possibly deliberately. They should breakout how the funds are earmarked more specifically, such as:
Full-Time CWG Position 1: $X salary / “X” $JUP allocation
Full-Time CWG Position 2: $X salary / “X” $JUP allocation
Full-Time CWG Position 3: $X salary / “X” $JUP allocation
Part-Time CWG Position 1: $X salary / “X” $JUP allocation
Moderator Salaries: Pool of $X
Overflow Budget: $80k
New CWG Members: “X” JUP allocation
Community Initiatives: “X” JUP allocation
BTW, why is the DAO paying the Moderators? Shouldn’t that fall on Jupiter since it’s their Discord? Shouldn’t the DAO have its own Discord in the name of separation?
Guess we’ll see if the Townhall sheds any more light on the subject.
-I approve of most of the proposal and look forward to seeing the team’s great work! I would like clarification for full transparency of the CWG.
-The JUP allocation, is there a way for the community to track live whether the JUP tokens to be allocated (2.5-5M JUP) to the CWG members, are being staked vs unstaked? I ask so that all community members can be aware of an increase potential for short-term sell off of JUP (if JUP is unstaked).
-Since this is the CWGs first official proposal, the budget should be for 6 month (trial period) so we as a community can evaluate the CWG’s performance. If the team continues to keep up the amazing work they’re are doing then we could approve for another 6 months, and then after that do every 12 months as originally proposed.
I’m genuinely impressed by the proposal, yet I maintain a healthy skepticism and appreciate the opportunity to provide constructive criticism. While I understand that it’s not intended to detail every aspect precisely, I’d like to recommend several areas for further development moving forward.
1. Detailed Roadmap with Milestones: The strategic initiatives and achievements are put under the list of achievements, and there is no mention of a roadmap or any such details with milestones and timelines.
Suggestion: Create a more detailed roadmap, which will cover all three periods of time in the project: short term, mid-term, and long term, with activities and the timeframes when they should be done. The roadmap should also list milestones that have to be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (SMART). This will help in internal planning and also give a clearer overview of the progress expectations to the stakeholders.
2. Community Engagement and Incentivization Critique: The proposal places significant emphasis on the community’s role, yet it lacks a detailed explanation of participation strategies. Specifically, it doesn’t sufficiently outline how to actively engage the community in governance and decision-making beyond the existing voting system.
Suggestion: Build on the community engagement strategies with more interactive and participatory modalities, for example, gamification elements in governance or community-led projects with their specific funding. Outline how you would ensure clear and maintained community feedback loops in order to adapt strategies based on community input.
3. Risk Analysis and Mitigation Strategies Critique: The proposal does not adequately address potential risks, challenges, and mitigation strategies.
Suggestion: You should do a full risk assessment that identifies all potential internal and external challenges posed by technological risks, market completion, regulatory issues, and execution risks. Suggest mitigation strategies and contingency plans for each of the risks identified. This approach will demonstrate foresight and preparedness to prospective investors and community members, highlighting the project’s strategic planning and future potential.
4. Scalability and Sustainability Critique: Assumes that growth and expansion are intrinsic, with very little discussion on the problems of scalability and long-term sustainability. Would be great to address the sustainability and scalability of the issues. And know the technical, operational, and financial aspects of scaling the Jupiter platform and its ecosystem. How, therefore, does Jupiter position itself to scale the platform and its ecosystem with the increasing volume of transactions, data management, and, of course, a growing user base?