The recent experience with deBridge , the Round #3 winner of the LFG launchpad, has highlighted a potential flaw in the current process. The project’s repeated postponement of their Token Generation Event (TGE), without announcing a clear date (even as of today), has negatively impacted the perception of both LFG and deBridge. For example, if deBridge were unable to launch their token before the upcoming ASR claim in October, it could create significant challenges for the JUP team in organizing the claim, potentially requiring the removal of deBridge from the equation. While this is hypothetical, it underscores the importance of timely token launches for the success of the LFG platform.
Proposed Solution:
To address this issue, I propose implementing the following improvements to the future LFG v2 launchpad process:
Strict Timeframes:
Launch Deadline: A winner of the LFG vote session must launch their token within 2 weeks of winning the vote, with no exceptions. However, a one-week extension may be granted under exceptional circumstances if the project can provide compelling reasons and obtain approval from the JUP team.
Preparation Requirement: Projects participating in the LFG vote should be fully prepared for launch at the time of the vote. This includes having all necessary technical infrastructure, marketing materials, and documentation in place. Failing to meet this requirement can undermine the credibility of the project.
Roadmap Requirement: The winning project must present a clear and concise roadmap detailing their launch plans.
Penalty System:
Replacement: If a winning project fails to meet the launch deadline, they will be replaced by the runner-up. The runner-up will have 1 week to confirm their readiness. If they do not comply, the LFG session will be canceled.
No Direct Penalty: While there might not be a direct penalty for the original winner, they will be responsible for the potential negative consequences on the DAO’s reputation and voter trust.
Increased Rewards:
Token Allocation: The DAO should receive a more significant percentage of the winning project’s total token supply as a reward for their participation and support. This would incentivize voters and provide a tangible benefit.
Benefits:
Improved Trust: Clearer rules and penalties will enhance the trust between the DAO and participating projects.
Increased Efficiency: Adhering to strict timelines will streamline the launchpad process and prevent delays.
Fairer Outcomes: A more competitive environment will encourage projects to be prepared and efficient.
Greater Rewards: Increased rewards for DAO voters will incentivize participation and support.
Protection Against Project Delays: The proposed changes will help protect DAO voters from projects that intentionally delay their TGE to “farm” users for fees. This is particularly important when separate airdrops are involved.
Potential Drawbacks:
Loss of Quality Projects: Stricter rules might discourage some promising projects from participating.
Conclusion:
By implementing these proposed changes, the LFG launchpad can become a more efficient, transparent, and rewarding platform for both projects and DAO voters. The focus should be on ensuring that projects are committed to launching their tokens promptly and that the DAO is adequately rewarded for its contributions.
After all, we all want the meow’s vision to become reality: the final result should be a LFG v2 that is able to sustain at least “one project every 2 weeks to maintain a very high quality pipeline”.
That should be the criteria for any lfg launchpad project. Dbr is actually doing it wrong, they are keep delaying. hope meow should take action regarding the launchpad criteria!
Sanctum team also do the same thing
There should be a fixed timeframe they must follow
If you are not ready to launch
You are not force to come into spotlight to talk about your token whatsoever.
Thanks for addressing this. Personally I was unaware of DeBridge delays. Interesting point here…
I agree that implementing some of these procedures will only strengthen the success of LFG launchpad moving forward. The projects launching should be aiming to be as precise and sharp as the JUP DAO itself🔥
Yea, true. As I heard the revamped version of LFG wants to be permisionles so that all projects that want to launch their token through LFG will be able to do that without needing the DAO vote… I’m gonna try to make some time to make another post with a comparison between LFG V1 with improvements vs LFG V2 that wants to be permisionles… I’m for the current version of LFG that involves the voting of DAO, because this is the reason why it was created in the first place.
Penalty system doesn’t make much sense imo. If a project won, dao has already invested a lot time and attention; penalizing the winning project for their delayed launch by withdrawing their right to launch will mostly hurt the dao holders that don’t get that reward now… Cancelling that LFG Round entirely would be a wasted effort on both parts…
I like the permission less approach, I wonder, if all the past candidates in LFG rounds actually got to launch, if things would’ve been more fun? Worth a try imo…
Another thing is, tho everyone would love that, it’s not up to us to have 1 top tier project launching every 2 weeks… That’s up to the universe. I hope it becomes reality haha but we can’t control that
I disagree with the most of the points above ,we should care to recognize that the current market conditions are making it difficult for many projects to proceed with their TGE,It’s not just about postponements for the sake of delay,projects are facing real challenges in finding the right time to launch when there’s sufficient liquidity, market interest, and trading volume to support their token
,with the condition of ongoing communication with the community,Having a structured update mechanism where projects report progress every two weeks, a clear statement promoting CAT
Here are some more points regarding my views on LFG and for the betterment of it
1.Discontinue Voting for LFG
Projects with larger communities tend to win votes, sidelining innovative projects that might not have the same following,
It promotes popularity over quality
2.Move towards a decentralised system
allow projects to launch their tokens every two weeks based on merit, as determined by the core Wg/team.
By removing the community vote, you remove the bias toward large communities and make the process more inclusive for smaller, innovative projects.
3.Follow the meow CAT-
Projects must fully disclose their tokenomics and details upfront, promoting Certainty, Alignment, and Transparency
a clear roadmap and team background verification before being approved to launch.
4.Improve ASR -
One concern with the current voting system is that JUP tokens make up the majority of the reward weightage, leaving other projects with less than 2% allocation in ASR rewards,
A permissionless system could ensure more balanced reward distributions by pushing for at least 5% of rewards from other projects.
Alternatively, increasing the total supply allocated (from the current 1%) could help ensure a more equitable governance and reward system.
hurt the DAO in what sense? getting pennies as reward ? from my pov only $jup tokens distributited to dao voters saved the first quarter of ASR, that was the real and only incentive for DAO voters…rest of the projects offered zero value for big majority of the DAO voters…yes, probably some big wallets with thousands or hundreds or thousands of staked $jup received valuable amounts of tokens from the winning projects, but those were few…most of us are normal investors. many of us received tokens from these projects that didn’t even have the value of the txn fee to claim them.
Although, your ideea of permissionles LFG sounds interesting, but only when we reffering to that chosen group of projects, that were still carefully selected by the jup team…and maybe all of those worth the chance to launch…but i kinda have the feeling that it will be proposed a permissionles LFG for all projects, without any kind of launching conditions…or in best case with the same conditions from LFG v1, and that is not good at all for the DAO…best example is deBridge launching.
Every terms and conditions regarding the project road map should be well discussed before proposing to launch on LFG. Couple of this project only came to get engagement from Jupiter community.
Nice write-up and do agree that things should be more stable and predictable in LFG terms. By the time DBR has been kicking the ball down the line, the runner-up could have already launched it and they are more prepped for this than DBR. Well at the end DIVVY opted to launch on Bonkpad (this september in case there is no delay).
? from my pov only $jup tokens distributited to dao voters saved the first quarter of ASR, that was the real and only incentive for DAO voters…rest of the projects offered zero value for big majority of the DAO voters…yes, probably some big wallets with thousands or hundreds or thousands of staked $jup received valuable amounts of tokens from the winning projects, but those were few…most of us are normal investors. many of us received tokens from these projects that didn’t even have the value of the txn fee to claim them.
