Agreed with the benefits of a tiered approach as was discussed last February: The Jupiter DAO Voting System Proposal
On the other hand this would incentivise splitting up JUP holdings and staking over several wallets to just reach the right tier on each wallet. This might be the main reason why the decision went to a 1 JUP equals 1 vote solution in the end.
I honestly can’t think of any solution to this as of now, which may not make tiering a feasible option until someone comes up with a solution to the wallet splitting issue.
I don’t necessarily mind that the largest JUP stakeholders (those staking Millions of JUP) in the top 50 have that much power and are properly incentivised. The main issue I’m pointing out is the conflict of interest when they have to vote about their own potential rewards.
That’s why I think it might be best if the team makes a decision on how much of Jupuary to allocate to stakers, then communicate it and put it up for a yes/no vote.
If for example 10%, 15%, 20% or even 25% of the 700 Million JUP airdrop of round 2 is allocated to JUP stakers (my proposal includes 10%) that leaves the rest of the 700 Million JUP to be distributed among the general Jupiter community.