The community has spoken, and the results are in. The proposal to reduce the $JUP supply by 30% has been approved with an overwhelming majority:
For: 260,131,475 (95%)
Against: 9,382,737 (3%)
Abstain: 4,519,713 (2%)
First and foremost, I want to acknowledge the democratic process that defines our Jupiter DAO. Even though I voted against the reduction, it’s clear that the majority sees this as a positive step for the future of $JUP.
Reflecting on the Decision
Acknowledging the Community’s Choice:
The approval indicates strong support for increasing token scarcity, which many believe will drive long-term value and stability. The overwhelming vote in favor shows confidence in the strategic direction proposed by Meow and the Jupiter team.
Concerns About the Voting Process: However, this vote raises some important questions about our DAO’s decision-making process:
Are We Becoming a Rubber Stamp Vote?
With such a high percentage of votes in favor, it’s worth considering whether our voting process is becoming a mere formality. Are we truly engaging in meaningful debate, or simply approving proposals without critical evaluation?
Serious Consideration of Options:
Are community members seriously considering and reading all the options presented to them? The strength of our DAO lies in informed decision-making, and it’s crucial that every member takes the time to understand the implications of each proposal.
Fear of Contradicting Meow:
Is there a fear of holding an opinion contrary to Meow? A healthy DAO should encourage diverse viewpoints and robust discussions, free from the fear of disagreeing with leadership.
Impact of Proposal Wording:
If the prompt had been worded differently, such as “Should the supply stay unchanged?” would the outcome have been different? The framing of a question can significantly influence the voting behavior, and we should be mindful of this in future proposals.
I want to clarify that I am not butthurt about the result itself. What concerns me is the prevalence of “yes men” in our DAO. Constructive dissent and diverse opinions are essential for a thriving community.
It does pose the question, are some of these votes passing too easily? are we reading a small twitter thread in 50 words that encourages voting a certain way? do people care, or do they just want their ASR rewards?
Can’t help but agree with point 1: Similarly to how my constituency works in my national government, my vote is meaningless when the mass vote all the same, what’s the point of going against the grain? As much as I wanted to vote no it was a pointless endeavour.
I chose instead to lean in to the value burning token supply could bring to the ecosystem. My voting power (over time) will become stronger, additionally less tokens means they are harder to come buy leading to (hopefully) a logical value increase.
Point 3 also makes a lot of sense, it seems when you have a figure head if you disagree or go against the grain you are essentially disagreeing with the protocol?
Given ASR rewards are not indicative on your vote type, yes/no/abstain not sure this is even worth your consideration. I think maybe we just have a lot of users who are disassociated directly with the protocol & instead vote yes as a default. Maybe we should do a quality control vote to see if people are actually paying attention?
Bit of a rambling, always enjoy your content!
Most voters will never have a “serious” opinion. That would require “experts” in certain topics to vote. Which is not a wholly unreasonable opinion to hold, but is not how the DAO currently works.
Implementing tiered voting based on JUP staked and/or time staked, for certain votes, may be a way to reduce votes to only whales with more at stake and hopefully more knowledge on repercussions.
EG: You may only vote in Z proposal if you have Y JUP staked or staked for X time.
However this does not truly reflect knowledge on a subject.
Currently I do not see any way to discriminate between informed or uninformed voters, other than staked quantities and time staked per wallet. I do not think the community would like these restrictions, but it’s an idea.
This is also the same problem that every government with public voting has to confront, so if we solve it here that’d really be something.
Fear of Contradicting Meow:
Voters have less of a fear of contradicting Meow, and more of an allegiance to Meow. Humans are tribal and JUP/DAO is still in it’s infancy, so Meow will inevitably have an outsized impact.
Impact of Proposal Wording:
Many people are functionally illiterate and will act emotionally regardless of what information is provided.
Key takeaway:
Voting needs an overhaul around time-staked perks and potentially quantity-staked perks.
I would also like to see competitive rewards for voting in certain directions. Our votes should be impactful for any participant. Perhaps you lose some JUP for voting, perhaps you win some JUP for voting. Getting paid to click buttons will inevitably result in left-curve IQ behavior.
Yes 100%. im very active in JUP discord and see so many new users who have been staking hoping in knowing nothing about proposal. Im conviced 70% of people dont care what they vote. i for sure do.
reminded me of 3 body problem, where the guy had to go through a tricky quiz of yes and no answers to confirm their choice, need to complicate this a bit without a simple yes or no, so that people realise what they are actually voting into
My guess is a lot of JUP holders are mainland Chinese who don’t even understand English…plus engaging in democratic process is foreign to them, given their background… and forum rules to exclude posting in other language than English also discourages their participation…
I really appreciate you voicing an alternative opinion to the majority. Even if I disagree, I still think it’s important to hear why people are opposed. Thanks
