LFG Retroactive with Soju & Slorg

Jupiter DAO LFG Updates
1

Over the last 3 months, 5 projects have been launched through the LFG process in addition to the Claimpad used by $TNSR.

In a few weeks from now, Jupiter will be unveiling the Catpad — a new product that aims to create a better alignment for memecoin launches.

During last week’s CLOUD launch, a few things were successfully executed:

  1. Community members of Jupiter & Sanctum mostly had a lower-cost basis due to the Alpha Vault
  2. In the past, we were forced to tighten the liquidity range (e.g. JUP was $4B - $7B FDV) to prevent giving botters free money. For CLOUD, we managed to execute a wide range ($1M to $500M FDV) without being heavily botted and exploited.
  3. Alpha Vault & spot-market was equally attractive, leading to a healthy balance of pre-market (alpha vault) and secondary market activity

Before we ramp up the pipeline again for new projects, we want to strategize with the community to ensure we have the best projects coming into LFG.

  • How do we empower the community to help attract top-tier projects?
  • How do we make the process more attractive for those who don’t win?
  • Should we launch projects more rapidly, or slow down the cadence and launch only the best out of the best?
  • How do we ensure that every project that wins is a high quality project that we can pour a lot of effort into the marketing & comms process?
  • Should we put more reliance into the team (Or WGs) selecting projects and then the community voting “Yes” or “No” on them?

Ultimately, we need to push forward with the community, to attract the best projects, and launch them well. Let’s do this!

Leave your thoughts here, or come to the Discord Town Hall on Wednesday 10 PM EST.

15 Likes
2

I like this.Very nice to see the team is improving on such details!

My general feedback would just b:

To make guidelines more around soft KYC identity in a way. I see too many new LFG Introductions who want to hide their teams real names and then hide behind “we will release those infos after launchpad and TGE because it will be more hype like that”.

I find that rather cheap and abusive as it reeks of abuse.

I think a project should not hind behind such things especially in the days of AI content creation. Too much wild stuff in the intros, especially when they hide their credentials but in the same line say stuff like “30 years of industry experience and prominent known industry well known persons” but ultimately cheap out to say they use temporary other accounts on twitter because “they are under NDA for now”.

The burden for verification should NOT be on the Jupiter team, but in contrary, any project with financial impacts, a token and whatnot to shill here, should give their Linkedin team members and the company they work for as a BASELINE.

Leave it to the Jupiter crowd to judge. They will and they are reliable “in the prawling pack”.

At the same time, I think the team needs to approach projects also a bit, because the step guidelines to LFG launchpad are too loosely formulated. You are missing out on good projects, because projects too have a timeline. “They should prove they fit in and live the DOA life while we will judge how much they align with Jupiter goals and if their TGE date suits us”… is no real guidance sorry.

Good quality projects have roadmaps and timelines, and if there is no interaction from team and absolute neglect on the projects LFG Introductions… “meh” how can their even be a real bridge and connection?

4 Likes
3

Loved the alpha vault, think the dynamics here were spot on. I think more clarity on when the launchpad liquidity removal is expected would be helpful.

3 Likes
4

I think the success of sanctums launch altogether will attract top tier projects naturally.

The fact that jup is giving them greater flexibility with how they launch a token? How long they can invest etc. Will attract them.

But from a general sense, I think it’s best to allow the greatest amount of flexibility for the project to launch the token within their protocol.

3 Likes
5

Definitely more attention needs to be given to the DLMM Alpha vault as it can really benefit buyers. It’s effectively a presale at a discounted rate. To be honest, I didn’t know much about it Until a few weeks ago so perhaps we use more marketing towards it on Twitter so so people know about it

4 Likes
6

Initial market cap currently ranges between $50-100 million even for new popular projects on Solana (Parcl, Kmno, Drift, Zeus). These projects have proven themselves to the community and are successful. I believe we should look for projects that will not exceed a market cap of $20-25 million and ensure that there is no inflation of the coins for one year in the FDV section (like Jupiter). By proceeding this way, projects will be priced better and attract more investor interest.

However, I must emphasize one critical point: Projects MUST create a use case for their coins. We should look for this requirement in every project. None of the projects launched on the LFG platform, including Sanctum, are actively used in their dApps. This shows investors that the coins are unnecessary and only created for profit. If we can prevent this and prove that the coins genuinely benefit users in the dApp, the token will reflect its value or the project’s value much better.

We must do this; otherwise, why would people invest in meaningless projects backed by VCs when thousands of meme coins are traded in the market? Tell me, what is the difference between buying Sanctum and MOTHER right now? Neither is useful, but at least MOTHER will treat me well. That’s all I have to say. Stay safe.

1 Like
7

I know we don’t need any more of these so don’t crucify me but maybe a LFG or a Launchpad working group may be beneficial. The team would be responsible for fielding the applications or seeking out the candidates. I think the metics for effectiveness would be clearly show as the quality is reveled after the launch. It would also be the main introduction vessel. Fielding questions etc. yes we have sections on discords and calls. I don’t know of a transparency for selecting candidates unless I’m missing it. I think the candidate need to align with JUP principles.

As for how to determine if a project is a high quality project that is tough. A project could have immense potential. I think the potential should be clearly stated. This is crypto and I know a lot of people want instant gratification. I don’t think JUP is an instant gratification brand. Maybe select projects with more potential or larger reaching instead of casino or nft companies. This has been done and is nothing new. Sanctum was new Zeus was new. While the tokens may not be worth much now it’s more of looking at the future and potential. What does Solana and Jupiter need not what can we bring more of to Solana and Jupiter.

As for launching more rapidly or thoughtfully, I don’t think it should be limited there may be 5 candidates that all meet the quality we are searching for and we can launch them consecutively or there may be none. We don’t want to launch for the sake of launch as it may taint the JUP brand and the LFG launchpad. But if we have 5 candidates that all meet the quality standards and are ready to launch and will benefit JUP and Solana as a whole we shouldn’t limit that.

1 Like
8

I don’t think community voting yes or no for a project to lunch at LFG will work. People will always vote for yes, because let’s be honest, a lot of people just want the airdrops. Team should filter the projects that will launch there

9

1- I used Alpha Vault with Uprock LFG but my initial 40% discount was gone when I Claimed my Tokens.For CLOUD I didn´t enter the Alpha Vault and I AM SAD!! :rofl:
(I will never miss an Alpha Vault again…)

2- Empower community: LFG is an inexpensive way to list Tokens in the market. Compare against NASDAQ or NYSE an IPO is really expensive and most of the time in the first 5 years the new listed companies loose money. The exposition is great. Evereyone wants to be listed in LFG. Maybe we should look to Re- Launch of some tokens, with discounts using Alpha Vault for projects that has tokens in the market since 2020, 2021…

3- The losers from LFG: we are losing good projects. And the projects are losing future clients. 3 Candidates is enough. How about to vote the PRE-Selection using the Stacked JUP ( A good JUP is a Stacked JUP).

4- The winners: Using pre-selections the quality of the LFG would increase. The Tokenomics need to be CLEAR before the Launch. And the Ecosystem: Kamino, Orca, Meteora, Hawksight, Radyum, JITO, Marinade, SolBlaze, ICP, PYUSD incentives for Liquidity should be available BEFORE the launch. Giving the opportunity for the Investor become a Liquidity Provider and Dexcentralising the tokens. DEX is priority. CEX sucks. Gate.io, AscendEX and MEXC has FAKE volume and unfortunately they may control the price of small tokens like KMNO, DRIFT. Stay away from CEX!!

5- Yes or no: Ok THE pre selection. And our incentive for votes using Stacked JUP maybe could be unclaimed JUP ( this will go DIRECTLY staked, just like the ASR).

3 Likes
10

Would love to be on the call but unfortunately might not be able to make it so want to put some thoughts here.

Recap

Goals

If we take a quick step back to why LFG I’d sum it up as a couple of points. For us to really achieve the future of the on chain economy we need more assets and more liquidity to live on chain. Pre sanctum launch the meta was majority of liquidity and assets to be off chain. Whilst we saw the success of Uniswap with long tail assets, the majors most of the time still had liquidity on centralised exchanges.

We need to reverse this trend and instead have more liquidity on chain

What we have?

At a very high level if we were to try to see what unique value prop we have vs other venues, it would be distribution to Solana native users.

One of the biggest issues that all crypto projects have is distribution. Experienced founders understand that at the end of the day that distribution > tech. Jup is uniquely positions for this given it has real distribution and users.

Coming from a project perspective, most of the time the actual distribution that comes from a CEX listing is purely to the token as a product - there is no tangible benefit to the underlying product. The token is treated as a standalone. However what we have actually is a solana native user base - there are users willing to try out platforms.

Thoughts on LFG

So given our goal is more assets on chain with deep liquidity and our USP is that Jup has distribution to active solana users then what can we do?

At a high level I’d suggest we explore the following:

  • Introducing token types as two separate products - permissioned and permissionless
  • Exploring matchmaking of users

Introduce Token Types

Just for further context I’d ideally like to put another definition here as well. I’m doing a massive generalisation here but let’s assume that tokens fall into blue chip vs long tail assets. My thoughts here are that both are important and require different strategies going forward.

Majority of trading volumes will always come disproportionately from the blue chip assets. However if we look at the success of Uniswap we saw the proliferation of long tail assets and the composability that followed.

The first point I’d propose here is to differentiate between the two:

  1. Permissioned Listings
  2. Permissionless Listings

The key difference between the two should be the amount of support thrown in by the core team in terms of marketing and support. Permissionless listings would almost be a tool set that the team provides to anyone who wants to launch their token - there’s no endorsements from the team but anyone is able to use it. Think of this as free tools that become fundamental infrastructure for anyone who wants to launch a token on Solana

Permissioned Listings

The flagship product should still be permissioned listings but I’d actually want to instead rephrase the questions that @0xSoju posted. Given distribution is the key, how do we grow it such that it’s a win-win situation?

As I pointed out at the start, our USP is solana native users. To me this means that Jup should become the matchmaking layer of users - how do we look to match real long term aligned users to projects looking to launch tokens.

In a future we should be able to segment out our gaming audience and present them a token launch where users actually want to try the product, use it out and play around with it. Founders will love launching with Jup because it is real distribution, not distribution to a standalone token product

How do we do this? I think this is where the power of the community lies. I’d suggest that we explore the following:

  1. How does the community or community leaders start to create sub-communities based on interest. How do we continually build these up
  2. How do we build products to support this goal of user matchmaking? How do we surface listings in a safe way that match a user’s needs and what they are looking for

Summary

If we want to continue having high quality listings then we need to have some USP. I believe one potential avenue can be to invest in bringing real users to projects that choose to natively launch on chain.

To support this I’d suggest as well that we look at launching permissionless listings such that Jup becomes the standard way to launch tokens on chain

5 Likes
11

Airdrop to win votes need to be fixed. While it is good to get initial traction, it hurts more over time.

Projects with utility tokens should be given priority.

Quality over quantity to maintain the value prop.

Yes, team need to moderate before the proposal goes out for community vote. Will help filter spam better.

3 Likes
12

One thing that I would like to do, that you alluded here, is to work much more closely with the LFG Projects from pre-launch to token-launch.

Build up their project to tap into our Solana Native users.

One concern i’ve had is that LFG right now, is that it predominantly favors established and large projects to win.

If we were to work with teams earlier to tap into our audience and build synergistic products, it would favor them in the vote (favortisim) or they might not be able to win the vote early enough to get our support.

Initially, I wanted to suggest a process where the team decides who gets launched, and the community’s role is as a veto-vote. I wonder what people think of that.

4 Likes
13

This is great.

I think in terms of community formation it’s already somewhat trending in the direction of interest-driven/talent driven segmentations and growth. Would be interesting to flesh this concept out further.

I think the proposed vision and delineation between permissionless and permissioned is excellent.

2 Likes
14

Based on this you honestly need probably a core team to do this at the very start. Or potentially you do something like:

  1. Grants program (top of funnel)
  2. Jup growth support (dedicated integration support, maybe community mktg support)
  3. Token launch support (permissioned listing in my post)

Probably can give (1) to community relatively easy-ish pending a strong mandate + technical person to evaluate etc.

(3) I think you’ll always need to do from core team. (2) maybe a hybrid mix but it’s going to be hard - almost like someone who does ecosystem and helps navigate things

15
  1. LFG will be the best launchpad only if it’s launching the best of the best.
  2. Good projects will choose LFG when both the tech (Alpha Vault and LFG Curve) and the community are top-notch – thus, the community needs to be carefully curated using the right incentives (e.g. thru ASR).
  3. The Core WG should also reach out to new projects – in addition to waiting for proposal submissions. When the candidates are good, the winner will be worth the marketing & comms effort. There is also a need for better marketing for the LFG Launchpad itself.
  4. LFG votes should not be longer than 5 weeks apart, and those who don’t win should be given a second chance (if they’re willing to) – just like UpRock.
  5. The non-Core WG should also market the JUP stakers as the best community in crypto, instead of just focusing on the JUP products and policies.
3 Likes
16

Your perspective on LFG is amazing! Delaying the project’s TGE date will have a significant impact on their investors. Projects should be ready with a clear and transparent roadmap.

2 Likes
17

this need to be a whole new product.

wanna work on it? hahahahahah

7 Likes
18

I was not sure about this one, but am now listening to dVin on JUP&Juice and they say that LFG could be an option for their launch. There’re also at least two projects that I really like that might be going for LFG in the next 3 months. Choosing between them would be an impossible task for me if they happen to be in the same round. On the other hand, if it’s a yes/no vote, it will be a “yes” 100% of times, so that kind of kills the purpose of us voting (which is currently our main job). :slight_smile: So, the choice in current paradigm is not an easy one:

  1. We miss out on launching some great projects because there is one winner per round, which sounds awful to me.
  2. We make the vote process meaningless, either by making it a binary one, or by adding a couple of “punchbag” projects for a clear winner per round.
  3. We rethink the purpose of JUP DAO and eliminate votes entirely. No idea even where to start here and what shape it could possible take.

Not really a helpful comment, I know. Just sharing my thoughts.

1 Like
19

Maybe delegate them into pools. big proj v big proj, and small v small.

However, as a voter, its benefits us having the big proj’s win. I think the more the better. Unfortunately i want the big proj’s to dominate.

3 Likes
20

Do it! hahahahahah :grinning:

1 Like