Authors Note
Whilst I understand Jupiter already has a mission statement for becoming the Global decentralized stock exchange, I see this more as a feature or institutional service; a good starting point for developing a strong and sustainable revenue vehicle. To many of you – its “good enough” and something achievable. To me, I see a powerful DAO that is capable of something much greater. The following is something I have been working on for years. I have setup and ran dao workgroups previously for over 2 years and have seen the kind of pitfalls and sticking points of conflict that often arise. There is multiple issues that will start to surface when you begin expanding workgroups – these will be realized before the value of this proposal is realized.
My contribution here is to simply put forward the solutions to problems that this DAO and all DAO’s will face. I do this here because this DAO also has the resources and community traction to actually remedy the major problems. I’m not going to debate or promote a need for these changes – time itself will do that on my behalf as the outcome of current trajectory is rather predictable and problematic.
All of the following system mechanisms and features proposed is already technically achievable. I have designed this from combining multiple existing features in blockchain, to produce new features such as Sybil resistance with “Anons”. This is an expanded system that I designed after my preliminary approach to Sybil Resistance and Consensus which can be found here > Two-Factor Majority Voting
Contents
1.0 - Governance
1.1 - Constitution: Federalization of DAO
1.2 - Regional & Global Workgroups/Orgs
1.3 - Democratized Treasury
1.4 - Delegation (Councils)2.0 - Contribution & Engagement
2.1 - Universal Basic Income (UBI) - an alternative
2.2 - DAO Bounty Boards & POAPs
2.3 - Programmable PFP NFT’s
2.4 - Gamification Leveling Matrix & Engagement3.0 - Sybil Resistance & ‘Anon’ Preservation
4.0 - Summary & Conclusion (TLDR)
1.0 - Governance
If we look around the World, each Nation is accustom to a variety of different systems of Governance. It is embedded in our cultural differences and conditioning – yet whilst each has its flaws, there is a greater consensus for the merits of Democracy. Of course, it too is flawed by the quality of information that voters act upon, or more accurately – the social inertia of group bias loyalty that is often irrespective yet paramount to what any party stands for. We have to take a comprehensive look at all these systems – Communism/Socialism & Autocratic, Constitutional Republic or Monarchy etc. – Identify what efficient and fair, and what are the vulnerabilities that encourage and invite corruption. I think its pretty glaringly obvious as to what begets all corruption in Governance – it’s the money, specifically how and where it flows through a governance system. What all of the above examples of Government systems have in common – is that the money cashcow filled with tax/debt is completely centralized and controlled. Senators and other gatekeepers of the treasury become targeted for funding approval and winning contracts. This is why many of them have much more wealth than a government salary pays (aside from the insider trading bonus).
In short, we can do better – but it does not mean throwing the baby out with the bath water. We can say Government structures are a kind of ‘first generation’ with the goal of facilitating its value and responsibilities. Corporations are a kind of ‘second generation’ that are more streamlined to do their task much more efficiently. If Apple ran like the US Government, you might get a new iPhone every decade – and it will be a shithouse too.
Now here we are, arguable creating the beginnings of the greatest DAO – and so we should consider a bit more; what exactly is a DAO? I think what most DAO’s suffer from the most, is getting ‘boxed-in’ with their perception due to the acronym itself. Not everything need be ‘Decentralized’, in-fact, that is why many DAO’s start ‘Delegation’ members (which is the same a Representative Democracy). I’ve seen a lot of DAO’s build and mature their way towards what most would consider to be a ‘Centralized Government’ – ironically done via means of decentralized preference. So this tells us that ‘Centralization’ is not a dirty word, that there is merit to including it in design, but how it is included is what matters. Specifically, is the point of ultimate authority always in the custody of the broader community? In this way, you can build centralized systems on top of the consensus of a decentralized authority (the community). What many DAO’s are, is the inverse of that – Centralized authority that has “Decentralized” systems built on top; unfortunately that just means all of it is still Centralized.
So keeping to the expectations of a DAO – we want to decentralize and democratize the authority to then delegate both financial and human resources into the organizational operations.
1.1 - Constitution: Federalization of DAO
The DAO should have a Constitution that both outlines and substitutes (where needed), the aspect of ‘Automation’ for the operating procedures of the DAO. This can be minted as an NFT with the WNS standard and used as a custodial criteria for additional utility and gating controls.
- Preamble (Mission Statement and Values)
- Definitions
- Roles & Responsibilities
- Governance & DAO Structure
- By-Laws (Operational Procedures)
- Amendments
1.2 - Regional & Global Workgroups/Orgs
I’ve defined our current workgroups as “Global” as the group is formed by participants from around the World. The nature of these Global groups is a more specialized focus of tasks suited to the expertise of the group members. This is highly efficient for task specialized work – being able to source required talent for the nature of remote contribution. The pro’s and con’s are more or less the contrast to ‘Region-specific’ working groups – each has their different strengths and opportunities, both are critical to fluid expansion of community growth and efforts.
Regional workgroups are a novel idea in the crypto world, but is actually the default way of how humans have always collaborated for almost all of our known history. ‘Tribes’ - it is in our hardwired conditioning to seek out, join and contribute to our ‘Tribe’. It is no different in the crypto world only that the we become tribalistic among online communities. But there is immense and irreplaceable value in localized tribes – in Nations – and that is the World built around you, which is neither possible to build in an online medium, nor able to be maintained. So – we have a choice, if we neglect the support of National mobilization, then it becomes the point of vulnerability for all ‘online mobilization’. Evident enough for when the power and internet was turned off in Kazakhstan due to their government lifting the cap on oil prices and causing civil unrest – that hit Bitcoins hashrate pretty hard giving so much hashrate migrated to Kazakhstan for the cheaper grid costs. Regardless, there is a million examples we can point too in the world that are critical dependencies for the preservation of online communities and services – so we need a direct solution to work in tandem with online infrastructure, to also improve the world around our electronic devices.
The proposed structure of National and Global Workgroups stages;
- Rebrand all Discord ‘Language Groups’ into their respective ‘National Groups’.
- Put a call out in all groups for Admin/Moderation Volunteers
- Create an Application Criteria for “DAO Treasury Allocation”
3.1 Team Size, Roles, Delegates
3.2 Initiatives and Roadmap
3.3 Application Approval utilizing ‘2FM’ voting system for consensus controls - Create National Orgs each w/ Website, Socials
- Facilitate Meet-ups, Education events, Skills Workshops, Humanitarian projects
For the Global Workgroups, these would be better organized in the structure of Departments & Agencies. For example;
-
Department: Communications, w/ sub-agencies for your various kinds of communications; Professional/publishing & drafting, media and content, moderation and announcements.
-
Department: Development & Growth, w/ agencies for marketing, coding & audits, partnerships, grant proposals
This is structured similar to most national governments and corporations, which I think is a good example to follow for its ability to be flexible, board and nuanced. The general pitfalls with the compartmentalized hierarchy is not that it is a compartmentalized hierarchy, but that it is too rigid with misplaced authority. If we include delegation and a democratized treasury as ill outline below, then we can retain the efficiency of central hierarchies, whilst decentralizing and democratizing the control of it.
1.3 - Democratized Treasury
fig 1.3
The above illustration allows voters to allocate custom % of their voting power to the specific Global Network Groups, as well as National Organizations. Here it would make sense to use exclusively token weighted gauges for voting, as it aligns the incentive for every group to provide more value and showcase it. As with National Orgs – this encourages membership growth and contribution, as that in-turn provides greater support for treasury allocation which leverages group bias in a positive manner, whilst all National orgs align together on the central goal of growing and improving the JUP DAO for all. In this way, we harness healthy competition and group bias in a way that provides a mutual exchange of value for all in the broader community.
Similarly, funding can be withdrawn if the DAO is discontent with efforts. The treasury allocation would be set to monthly or quarterly epochs. This instils controls for utilizing the DAO treasury in an ongoing an effecient manner – rather than committing large bulk amounts for long vesting cycles and then hoping results will come, or worse still – not being able to have any means to changing group delegates and funding allocation. This brings me to the next piece of the system.
1.4 - Delegation (Council/Leads)
1. For Global Departments and Agencies, allow for internal and central authority of appointment with Delegates and Leads. This is because these are specialized and technical groups that have a better understanding of who is of greater value to their operations than the general community. This is why a Decentralized Treasury control is ideal – as it gives room for workgroups to operate more autonomously and interdependent, whilst the DAO judges the viability of funding the group based on performance and results. In this way, we combine what drives a Corporation to perform optimally, whilst integrating accountability through the broader population with DAO governance.
2. For National Organization, we can kickstart the process by running a simple poll in each discord channel for that National chapter. This could be further democratized by running the poll for nominations only, and then using the "2-Factor Majority’ system to confirm Delegates and Organization roles. In this way, each National Group is birthed as a grassroots and ground up movement.
3. Regarding Delegation votes for either National or Global councils, these would be better developed as an ‘on-going’ and ‘live’ vote so it can function as a real-time approval rating. From this, we can automate the process of re-election based on an approval rating threshold. This is critical to the issue of officials that campaign on false promises and then reserve a power position for an enduringly long time.
2.0 - Contribution & Engagement
There are many problems that arise when as a global DAO we are to assign value to tasks and contributions of effort. This is because of the inherent differences with geolocation and respective economies, not to mention that fair criticisms of ‘meritocracy’ whereby not everyone has access or opportunity to the same tools, resources ect.
What typically unfolds when you give a dao the responsibility to reward itself for contributions, is that the lowest effort task that is more visible tends to get farmed and rewarded more than difficult but less visible tasks. For example, community content teams creating twitter threads as opposed to someone editing an ama video. Another issue is mutual rewarding systems like ‘Coordinape’ where people can simply collude in agreement to reward one another with their allocations irrespective of their contributions.
In addition to the above challenges, there also remains the obstacle of sufficient sybil resistance. As we’ve seen with countless airdrop and presale offerings, bots generally have the upper hand. With AI development, this only compounds the difficulty even further with verifying human authenticity. This problem is on a direct collusion course with your privacy and willingness to submit biometrics or plug a chip into yourself. I stumbled across this possible solution while trying to figure out how to design a UBI system on-chain. Problem with doing that, is you first need to remedy sybil attacks, which brings us full circle to the issue of privacy again.
So I Designed a System that does the following;
- UBI system that rewards bounty completion
- Digital ID that preserves anonymity
- Limits Rewards for people using multiple ID’s
- Increases Rewards for people using a single ID
- Incentivizes on-going retention of contribution
- Democratizes ‘Value-Attribution’ for tasks
- Automated to Balance budget allocation and participant engagement changes
- Gamification Format with PFP/Ranks & Levels/Leaderboard.
Below is a complete overview Illustration with link. Continue reading for the breakdown of it.
Top half
Bottom Half
Link 1
Link 2
2.1 - Universal Basic Income
One of the greatest flaws with UBI or welfare systems is that they tend to bloat in cost whilst reducing the workforce. In contrast, philanthropy donations to charitable organizations is something people do voluntarily, and it helps improve the local community. This is where we can utilize this model for deploying to National Organizations in which the DAO Treasury facilitates the ‘act of charity’ so to speak. For lack of a better label, this is more of a hybrid UBI system that can be automated with democratized authority.
- Above we have a pool for the JUP rewards. We first calculate the “RATE” by dividing the budget by participating members ( > Level 1).
- This RATE is the maximum any member can be rewarded with. Instead, contributors are rewarded by a fractional % of the RATE - Determined by the “Level” you have achieved by completing bounties.
E.g. Those at level 500 will only receive 25% of the max RATE. Similar to a Salary cycle, this would be paid Weekly with a rolling Monthly budget.
This approach self-adjusts to new participants and maintains in a surplus with allocated budget.
2.2 - DAO Bounty Boards & POAPs
The following is a ‘DAO Bounty Board’ where members adjust the “XP” value of each listed Bounty. These bounties are then completed and the “XP” Value in snapshot as a special POAP. Think of it as a completion certificate with experience points.
It is important to exclusively nominate Bounties that are repeatable only with minimal to no cooldown. This allows 1 individual to farm the same XP compared to another who uses two accounts. Even if this is done, the overall system in conjunction discourages it. However, If you make the Bounties 1-time completion, then it gives advantage to sybil attacks. This also helps to always have repeatable bounties for community to do at any time of day that suits them.
Alternatively, the XP value for bounty completions can be fixed instead of variable. The variable option is to help find the right value to put on tasks as determined by participants collectively.
2.3 - Programmable PFP NFT’s
I’ve illustrated a concept for a ‘JUP ID’ that ‘re-mints’ the meta-data as it interacts with the XP-POAP’s from bounty completion. In this way, the ID accumulates a total of experience points and level to determine reward allocation.
2.4 - Gamification Leveling Matrix & Engagement
As highlighted earlier – the ‘UBI’ reward distributes according to ‘ID Level’. In order to improve on-going engagement and reducing cost of potentially dormant or idle accounts, we can add a time decay to the XP.
To level up, this is fixed to a Linear progression. The example above is 100 xp / Level. The reason I have done this, will be understood when combined with the Lorenz curve of the rewards distribution. It is designed like such to provide sybil resistance and allow the ID to function as an acceptable means of validating that you’re human.
3.0 - Sybil Resistance & ‘Anon’ Preservation
Lorenz Curve Distribution w/ Linear XP Leveling
1. First we customize the metadata of the POAP so that is can only merge with the associated ID/PFP that was held in the wallet during completion of the Bounty. This prevents merging XP from completed bounties on one wallet with another wallet that did not complete the bounty.
2. By having a fixed Linear XP to Level, we leverage something that humans can not duplicate – their time. Similar to a Game Character in a MMO – it takes time to level it up through quests. Now if you were to be rewarded for the Character level you have and there was no cap to that level – where would you spend your time? Probably not on investing time into multiple Characters.
3. To reward use of a single ID, and discourage sybil attacks – I’ve applied the Lorenz curve which dictates a greater Reward to Time ratio for utilizing the single ID. This doesn’t absolutely protect against botting – it just makes doing so self-defeating.
The Linear XP, the Restricted POAP, the ID & Level, and Lorenz Curve distribution per Level – all work in conjunction to as a whole. As you can see in the above Sybil Resistance Mechanism, the exploiter has a lesser reward total for their time than the individual using a single wallet ID. The displayed numbers are not random for illustration, they’re calculated.
This approach may not be perfect, but as far as providing a reasonable solution for digital ID, preserving privacy, and a sustainable and meaningful UBI – this is the best I can do, and its been an exhaustive effort trying to navigate the design of it.
4.0 - Summary & Conclusion (TLDR)
I had intended to write further about the broader potentials of National Orgs expanding into direct political influence. Perhaps to even better shift the way our own governments operate. I will leave it to the imagination and wrap this up.
What was covered;
- Defining Workgroups in Global and Local categories
- Departments & Agencies
- National Orgs & Purpose
- Decentralizing Treasury Allocation
- Delegation and Approval Ratings
- Rewards System w/ Gamification design
- Sybil resistance system, ID & privacy preserving
Thank you for your time reading, granted this is a lot for anyone to absorb at once. Please feel free to bookmark and take your time considering all the information and ideas shared.
