The supermajority didn’t say yes or no. There was no supermajority reached, right. The majority said yes with 58% and the no vote was 42% in regards to this current proposal for January.
2 Likes
For sure a supermajority said yes. The results you are talking about are the results based on voting power. A supermajority of users voted for the proposal. 1=10 only in a very centralized organization. 70% threshold to pass a vote has nothing to do with a decentralized organization. Unilateral decisions have nothing to do with a decentralized organization. Maybe one day… JUP DAO, not there yet.
Sure, you can come up with whatever you want, just please, avoid the word “decentralization”. It’s getting pathetic already.
2 Likes
You’re right I misphrased, I meant to say “we have to give you guys less tokens because the supermajority didn’t say yes”. But supposedly the team/reserve tokens arent unlocked and usable for votes. That’s good for now, but team ultimately gets 50% of the total supply, once they have even 20% of the total supply, they can supply 66% of what’s needed for that denial of supermajority, is just the general idea ive been trying to point out. such a high requirement can eventually get sketchy when the team is allotted more than what is needed to deny supermajorities.
2 Likes
Personally I was not in favour for having a supermajority when I went to vote. I am advocating for décentralisation by the suggestions I have proposed above.
2 Likes
Voting power needs to be equalised across as many people as possible for true decentralisation. Personally I trust the team. From what I can see they are taking a lot of heat because they are trying to balance a lot of different opinions / needs.
Hence why it might be good to change the mécanisme currently used to decide any future vote.
Again the supermajority did not say yes or no, since both votes never got to 70%.
What I would love the team to do after been giving the okay by the Dao is to implement the airdrop as proposed and promised. I am even in favour of just letting the team decide all together without a vote, but they would then definitely need to change the voting power system to a decentralised model. Also no more supermajorities within voting.
But that’s just me.
1 Like
Could you clarify how you envision balancing the influence of large stakers and smaller, consistent users in the proposed badge system? How do you think the voting power could be distributed in a way that reflects both stake size and active participation without compromising decentralization?
1 Like
Do you really expect for someone that is risking $1000 to have the same voting power as someone that is risking $100000?
1 Like
The badge system is just an idea to discourage small multiple wallets trying to game the vote. Just as currently large whales can game the vote. Also it means a lot more real users joining the Dao on equal footing. The barrier to entry would be high enough but low enough to get a lot more real users of the Dao. It also would even out the voting power.
It could look like this a minimum stake of say 100 Jup + trading volume of +100000$ per year has the same voting power as everyone above 1000 jup staked. Everyone above 1000 jup staked would have the same voting power. These are just madeup numbers and a very simplistic exsample. I would prefer that everyone over a certain amount staked would actually have the same voting power but then it could be gamed. Also a system should be in place to block additional wallets owned by the same person from staking Jup, if possible.
It’s all just an idea and other solutions could be better suited. The main point is to make the Dao as equal and inclusive as possible. As I said before staking is usually a reward system and that in itself is a very good idea. The more you stake the more you should benefit.
1 Like
Yes definitely yes. One should not mixup voting power with staking rewards.
1 Like
That would be the ideal scenario if done in a fair way. But ultimately, financial products/institutions rely on big investors, so there will always be some sort of inherit bias towards them for taking on added risk.
1 Like
True it needs to be fair. I don’t think Jupiter exchange is in a position though of needing investors. They make a lot in trading fees. It’s a different space. Normally investors in crypto are rewarded via Apy by staking or by price appreciation. Since this is a Dao decentralised autonomous organisation and not a Co centralised organisation investors should not expect the same rules. In a Co usually large stakeholder’s have a say in the company. In Dao everyone has equal say. So which is it?
1 Like
In a DAO, of course I expect all the votes to have the same power. For risking 100k vs. 1k, you get 100 times bigger staking rewards. Why one vote should be more meaningful than 99 votes?
Of course, you can have a minimum staking threshold or if you want to be part of CAO or CACAO or CACA you can impose a threshold only for whales. Just don’t come here to tell us how decentralized you are.
1 Like
No you don’t get bigger staking rewards; the returns are the same for everyone.
You’re forgetting that us holders are considered investors as well. The larger the amount invested, the more liquidity and price stability the coin has.
Why can’t it be both, because that’s what tends to happen. In an ideal world, everyone is equal. But in reality, even with dao’s, there tends to be an imbalance of power.
Of course the holders are investors. In reality though we can’t call something a Dao if it is something else. It’s only becoming clear now that this is the case.
This is the chart for the second vote for the upcoming jupuary. As you can see it does show that around 10% of the people are responsible for 40% of the outcome. This really needs to be addressed.
1 Like
As long as they are proportionally rewarded, why not? When you go to vote are they asking you what’s your income or how much is worth your wealth?
buy more tokens… it’s reality. deal with it in a constructive manner
You are missing the point. This current system has a potential weakness that needs to be addressed. Anyone with a lot of capital can influence the Dao in a direction that may not benefit the ecosystem. Worst case scenario competitor of Jupiter decides in a bear market to buy up a ton of tokens and then uses that voting power to steer the exchange in a direction that hurts it. Other scenarios. People don’t get what they want and will always be able to say see it’s not decentralised and they would be correct. Tons more scenarios if you want them. Someone needs to play devil’s advocate.
If that’s what you’re trying to accomplish then I’m happy to engage… but at a different time. We all need to focus on what’s at hand. Also, i just felt a lot of those posts had such negative energy…