With the 2nd round of LFG now under our belt — it would serve us well to reflect on what happened.
A retrospective:
We had record turnout with over 230 million JUP casting a vote for their preferred candidate.
Additionally, the feedback from the Round 1 Forum post was incorporated, with multiple UI and Quality of life changes being implemented including:
A direct link to the governance site on jup.ag
The fact that you voted being made more clear
Who you voted for being made more clear
For a visual of what this looks like, you can refer here:
However, now we would like to solicit your feedback
Over the course of the process, the CWG has taken notes based on community sentiment and feedback we’ve witnessed across the Discord chats, and in the Twitter Spaces we did last week.
However, before we analyze everything, we would like to present one more opportunity to voice any feedback regarding the LFG process.
To get you started, we present a few questions:
Were there any aspects which you particularly liked?
Were there things you wish could be improved?
What are the most common sentiments you’ve seen regarding potential LFG changes from other people? Do you agree with them?
Thank you for taking the time to be a part of this co-creative process. We look forward to your comments, and similarly to last time, we will post a follow up under this thread.
Giving projects a second chance at LFG was a good idea, i.e. Uprock
Clarity around which projects have confirmed tokenomics or airdrop. Something like a yes/no checkboxes table with rows for each project: a) are tokenomics known b) is there airdrop confirmed c) expected TGE
These are the most common questions. And I think the CWG should at least be clear on the knowns/unknowns. Even if everything is unknown.
Blind voting seems cool but I don’t think it will have material impact on voting outcomes.
the voting process is simple and effective & should be kept as such.
Great that the CWG implemented some changes after the last vote on the voting page to show ‘voted’ & who we voted for clearly.
Based on Uprock’s performance it will be a good idea to bring back the candidates that finished 3rd & 4th in the next voting round.
all candidates should be requested to give a clear position regarding tokenomics & how they will reward LFG DAO voters in particular in their airdrop plans.
Blind voting is bad idea as it’s been suggested by some in my opinion. It can lead to lack of transparency, reduced accountability, risk of errors, increased influence of external factors, reduced trust in the DAO voting process etc. I find the open voting system helpful in confirming or challenging my biases & it makes me research more about the projects again before casting that final vote.
1 The creation of multiple duplicate wallets surged after Zeus rewarded per wallet, yet the overall staked value remained largely unchanged, lagging behind other projects that grew 100%-1000% faster in the same period.
A new strategy to enhance Jup’s value could be to offer a 5% discount on trading fees when paid with Jup, similar to BNB’s model. While Jup is currently a governance token, its function can evolve beyond that
2 Additionally, it’s vital to implement a clear visual guide on the website outlining the process of STAKING, VOTING, and REWARDS, with specific dates. This will help clarify the process for users and reduce confusion about airdrops and rewards, which has been a source of frustration among the community.
3 Projects should also commit to more substantial airdrops given their exposure to a 250,000-strong community. They receive significant value and should not underestimate the benefits of providing more generous token distributions.
4 Lastly, despite leveraging the Web 3 community for promotional purposes, some projects, like Heroes, do not genuinely engage with the crypto or Web3 spaces, using them merely as marketing platforms. We should take note.
However we heard that some of the projects will give airdrops to who votes their projects whether win or not.
That means some of them get 2 airdrops, some of them more than 2.
Think about 2 people with the same jup stake. One of them gets 2 airdrops(which wins the voting), one of them gets 3(which wins the voting and also which he/she voted)
That is unfair and also effects the voting.
İn the next voting everyone will choose who announce “we will give airdrop who voted us”
I liked the increase in engagement and it felt like more of us spent more time digging in, researching candidates, and discussing
Like most replies so far, I am against the idea of blind voting. If my first choice was in last place going into the final six hours and I like the second or third choice more than the one above it, I prefer to have the power to recast my vote for a different candidate.
Overall, I think it worked better this time around.
Improvements:
This is a weird one. Being able how all the votes are tracking creates for lazy voting.
Taking a nod from the Futarchy/MetaDAO approach. When I voted the first time I went with the crowd sentiment based upon the updated voting stats that were pushed out on Xitter.
Following the crowd instead of thinking ain’t good. It’s potentially troublesome as it created a system where influencers can control the narrative.
In effect, the company with the biggest pool of cash wins.
I think everyone likes it. Only suggestion: Do a deal with all the main three wallets to do a big ‘ONE DAY LEFT TO VOTE’ message on the in-app ad space.
In effect, this is a retail campaign and you have to scream in order to get maximum users. I’m an ad guy, and in times like this you need urgency more than looking cool.
3.1 The reveal.
This is a massive lost opportunity for Jup and Solana.
Like an olde-fashioned NFT mint from 2021, there should be a countdown clock on a dedicated site to reveal the winners.
Similarly, Meow or others should host it as a show.
Why?
Unlike other chains (and this was pointed out to me by @dirt_digs from), unlike all other chains Solana has personalities that give the side humanity. This is another part of the jigsaw.
3.2.
I do advertising pitches all the time. I hate them. They’re costly and time consuming. My only suggestion would be to compensate the losers with a modest bag of JUP (that could be vested on a tiered scale, for example).
1. Were there any aspects which you particularly liked?
The UX improvements were aspects I really liked, and shows the CWG and the Jupiter team truly listens to feedback and work in benefit of the community. Thank you for this.
2. Were there things you wish could be improved?
The DAO and the voting process is a very important aspect of our ecosystem and even though most of the people are motivated mainly due to the incentives and rewards, I believe we can try to “help” them by making them do a bit more of research before casting their vote the following way:
Avoid showing the results in real time to prevent voters from being influenced to vote for the project that is winning at the moment instead of voting for the project they think deserves the vote. There will likely be third party sites that could show the real time results due to the nature of the blockchain, but most of the voters won’t know or bother to find these sites. Instead, they will feel the necessity to ask and participate in the Jupiter discord chat and even though their original reason to participate in the chat is for something as trivial as asking “who is winning, so I can vote for that project”, there is a chance that in that process of asking that question, the voter can learn a bit extra or at least learn the basics of what each project is about.
Each wallet can only vote once and can’t change the vote once submitted. This prevents flip flopping and makes the voter, or at least most of them, do actual research because they only have one chance to vote.
3. What are the most common sentiments you’ve seen regarding potential LFG changes from other people? Do you agree with them?
Some of these common sentiments are that each project should have clear tokenomics and vesting schedule information BEFORE being accepted to be candidates for the LFG Launchpad voting process. I totally agree because this is vital information to know, because even a good project could be hurtful for the voters and the DAO if it has poor tokenomics or bad vesting schedule (that could benefit hidden agendas from VCs or seed investors that could have malicious intentions to use the LFG Launchpad as “exit liquidity”). Therefore, it should be mandatory for each project to have this information ready and be completely clear in regards of its tokenomics if they want to take part in the Launchpad.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the CWG for their hard work and huge contributions to this process and to the Jupiverse in general. I think together we can create a great DAO with a beautiful voting process, and as someone who loves what is being built here and feels part of this awesome community, these early days are crucial and important to set strong bases and create a very solid system to be implemented for the future voting processes.
I think votes must not be changed after they have been made, so this will stop the blind voting. May be we can have an option to divide votes into 2-3 portions and use them on different projects at the same time and only after the voting has been made - see the results of the current moment.
I think with these changes the process itself is simple and effective
Blind voting would be preferable, but it is really important to clarify that who you vote for doesn’t affect rewards, otherwise as soon as a project reaches a critical mass people who think that voting for the winning project(s) will put their votes there.
Tokenomics and any rewards offered to voters should be a requirement.
There is still a lot of confusion around the difference between rewards for voting (Vs just staking) Vs airdrops from projects Vs JUP airdrops. I think this needs better communication and clarification. There is also a lot of confusion about reward size Vs amount staked. Some people are doing calculations but they seem to vary wildly. Although I’m sure a lot of people are here and staking because they love JUP, even many of those people still need to make sensible decisions about where to put their money. At the moment, and at a point where (hopefully) alts are set to pop, lack of hard figures relating to rewards make it a harder call to stake. What if the rewards are paltry and by then a lot of the potential upside of other tokens is missed. Being clear about rewards would allow people to make better decisions and avoid a potentially huge backlash if rewards are not substantial.
The sudden and massive lead taken by the winning project didn’t seem reflective of either the offerings of the project, or of their engagement with the users, but looked (at least outwardly) like manipulation. Would it be possible to show where votes came from for each project, I.e. which proportion came from whales, JUP staff, and smaller holders. Definitely not saying it was manipulation. Just looked very sketchy and anything that could be done in future to allay that would be helpful.
Was looking at how I can link your video here to raise these points but it’s quite long. Pleased you popped in here yourself & dropped this brilliant summary as my understanding is that many from your community & beyond agree with this issues you raised here.
and only after the voting has been made - see the results of the current moment
ELRAEL, If we have the option to divide votes, this could be exploited. People would use 1 vote to see the results in real time and then use all of the other JUP voting power to vote for the project that is winning.
However, I do agree that we shouldn’t be allowed to change our votes and we shouldn’t be able to see who is winning in real time. At least not from the voting site directly. If third parties (sites) want to have that info, let them. Most of the voters won’t even bother to check, and most will likely go to the Jupiter chat and get involved in the community to search for that info. Which, in the long term, could be a good thing, because that will make them get involved in the chat and the community.
I don’t like the project vs project approach. Would prefer more frequent yes/no voting on each project with feedback going to those projects on how to move from no to yes.
levicook. The problem with the “Yes or No” approach is that everyone will vote “Yes” to all projects just to get tokens from it, and then the LFG launchpad will become flooded with mediocre projects and lose its appeal. We need the LFG launchpad to become exclusive to good projects. We want only good projects to launch here.
This is why the idea given by Meow in the last spaces to launch 1 project per month is actually good. We will be launching only the best of the best and the capital won’t dilute into 2 projects per month, but instead focus on one project per month.
Eventually, when we prove ourselves to be a very high quality top launchpad in all of web3, we can increase the Fee from 1% (0.75% to Jup voters), to 2% (1.50% to Jup voters).
In my humble opinion as a newbie here, CWG is to be congratulated for all the effort and for positively differentiating itself from other proposals! Proud to be here with you all!
Voting went smoothly but, taking the hook from a cadet below… yes, after Zeus sent tokens in thanks, many wallets were duplicated… but for me, CWG and participating projects, could check user interactions on dissemination channels, as a participatory cadet in JUP’s proposals. Sending tokens to your followers and participatory trailblazers with verification also through discord, for example, could be interesting!!!
Voting is participation and many small investors who do a good job of publicizing and participating in the media, Discord, TG, X, among others, and are actively participating, could be better selected to receive participation tokens, than just those who have lots of tokens!
Do you know how to make the link and check the activities!! heheee
Many little ones form the biggest mass! Remember this! Success always to everyone!