If voting rights alone represent power, then in the future, the Jupiter team of 80 people holding 3.5 billion JUP in voting rights, while an individual like Meow holds 280 million JUP, clearly poses a risk of power concentration. Adjusting and designing a new 50/50 governance structure could be a lengthy and challenging process.
5 Likes
One could have a one hundred staked Jup entry level to vote and everyone’s voting would count the same and capped at one hundred in regards to voting. Staking rewards could be kept the same as they are currently. Jupiary could be focused in the next round / rounds to onboard those active on the exchange in 2025/2026. The fourth jupuary should be reinstated and onboard people using the exchange in 2026. Not go to ASR or those staking. ASR could be supplied via the buybacks or creating a borrow lending platform. That quick sum up would solve quite a few problems I think.
2 Likes
I’m probably a little late to this, and honestly, based on the lack of comments, it doesn’t seem like very many people are interested in the subject. Though, if I may suggest, you’d probably have more participation if your title was shorter and had a clear subject.
So, I am just an average Meme/Alt trader. I haven’t hit that lotto meme. When it comes time to vote, I read the proposal, a large amount of the input, and then vote. I check to see if proposals pass, but I don’t pay attention to voting percentages or anything. Even so, I do wonder if my vote makes a difference, and if I’m wasting my time in trying to understand and weigh the proposals?
I know there are at least a couple large holders looking to leverage those holding to increase their gains, and if you pay attention to comments, suggestions, and proposals feedback, it’s not terribly hard to get a feel for who’s pushing ideas that favor the large holders. Large holders can definitely overwhelm a large portion of the community. That kind of sucks but it not a problem when large holders want to be part of the community and are acting in good faith. But, a few large holders could easily work together without anyone being aware, to press for advantages at the expense of the rest of the community, and it’s never noticed until it’s a problem and it’s too late.
Assuming there’s an interest in preventing that, there will need to be a maximum number of votes anyone can exercise and If that’s something Jupiter DAO moves forward with, my only suggestion is to forego trying to handle special cases which always end up creating exploitable complexity. Assess the current numbers and don’t try to account for future. Just figure out how many people are voting, and how much Jup each has staked. Then just pick a few numbers that seem reasonable, hold a vote, and that’s the max for that year.
Then reassess again every December, but there should probably be a limit to the percent of change each year; like my property taxes, whatever happened to property values this past year, the maximum my property taxes can rise per year is capped at 6%. Having a similar rule for changing maximum votes each December, hopefully will prevent someone from getting super angry about a change..
2 Likes
Jupiter is shooting itself in the foot by having voting power. They just don’t realise it yet in my opinion. There is a huge community of good actors including team. But it’s also early days and everyone has to decide for themselves what is the right thing to do.