LFG Retrospective & Feedback Round #2

Jupiter DAO LFG Updates
43

Most has already been said but I just wanted to let my voice be known that I agree wholeheartedly with my fellow catdets!

I like the current voting process with the UI updates in contrast to the first vote (you can see who you voted for etc.). Blind voting was first an ok idea but after hearing other catdets talk about reduced transparency got me thinking that we should just leave it as it is. The only feedback I have is that we should work on making candidates be more transparent about their tokenomics pre voting so something like sharky will not happen in the future.

1 Like
44

In my opinion, the issue of prohibiting participating projects from offering incentives for voting for their project needs to be resolved. I understand that this will be a disadvantage for Jupiter, but if we need to understand the actual voting rating and subsequently the overall ranking of the Solan ecosystem, it is a small loss

2 Likes
45

Ditto, couldn’t agree more.

2 Likes
46

You have very good ideas and I agree with most of them, The only one I disagree is the 1 vote per person win. This can easily be exploited. A project could create dozens or hundreds of thousands of wallets with 1 JUP to vote for itself and win this way.

3 Likes
47

I agree, I don’t like the approach that you only get an airdrop if you voted for my project. If airdrops are offered, they should be offered to all who participated in the vote, regardless of who we voted for, otherwise we should wait until the last minute to cast our vote to make sure we vote with the majority in order to get an airdrop.

4 Likes
48

I think this can be “resolved” (in a way) by launching only 1 project per month, hence only 1 winner per voting session. The winning project is usually a very strong established project that doesn’t need to bribe to win. In the case of Zeus, they were clearly the strongest project of the first voting session, they didn’t have to do that extra airdrop, but they did it anyway, which is fine and very appreciated, but doesn’t have to be a mandatory thing.

Some pro’s of launching only 1 project per month:

  • Only the best of the best wins and gets launched. Making the LFG Launchpad a very exclusive and desirable place to launch.
  • Strong winning projects with good tokenomics are good for Jup voters because there are higher probabilities that the winner’s token value tends to increase in time as the project continues developing and growing.
  • Capital is not diluted into two different launches each month, but its focused on one, which is the better one. This makes the token have a better price appreciation and price action after it is launched. If most or all of the tokens launched in the LFG Launchpad have a positive result, this gives the Launchpad a better reputation and desirability.
  • Less risk of having a “Sharky situation” that could hurt the reputation of the LFG launchpad.

Con’s of having only 1 launch each month, well, less tokens for the JUP voters, but this can be fixed by increasing the LFG fee from 1% (0.75% to voters) to 2% (1.50% to voters) after we have proven ourselves to be a Launchpad with high standards and good results.

4 Likes
49

I’ll be honest, I’m not sure how, but you are probably right, a bot might be able to do this. Not sure if a snapshot of wallet addresses would help, or perhaps verifiable users through twitter or discord accounts. I’m just hoping we can find a way to ensure a select few don’t always make the decisions. I have seen projects that claim to be decentralized but yet one or two people control 51% of tokens and still make all the decisions on voting. I just want to make sure the same thing is not happening when we vote on projects.

3 Likes
50

Should be able to change your vote, in the event that new information comes to light.

Shouldn’t be able to see the % of $JUP that has voted for a project (until the vote has ended).

51

cancellation time is too long,15 days will be better.

52

Feedback on current ux/ui

  • 6 candidates I believe is the right number since there are two winners. This gives a 33% chance for each candidate to win, as opposed to 50%. This promotes better quality applications, as effort to outcome is slightly more competitive.

  • Allow weighted distribution with multiple choice selection. I’ve suggested this before and it is a no brainer – it will help give a more accurate reflection of sentiment and can potentially change outcomes significantly. Use weighted slide bar for each choice so that we can allocate portions of JUP to any or all candidates

  • Display both the JUP totals for each candidate, and the wallet count of voters. This way we can start to get an idea of potential conflicts between popular consensus and voting power of individuals. Once more, I do encourage testing and integration of “2FM” system that I have updated and outlined Here > Voting Concept: 2-Factor Majority - #11 by worza

1 Like
53

  1. The UI change is an improvement. It’s now clearer. It would be nice if the name of project that we voted for was highlighted though.

  2. I object to the plan of moving to just 1 winning candidate per month. This will be a major limitation for the LFG. I agree with limiting the max number of projects to 4.

  3. The idea of blind vote is just a bad idea all around.

54

I think app is very good but all of content is without pictures and motions

55

After listening to the most recent Planetary Call, I really like the idea of trimming down the LFG candidates from six to four but I don’t necessarily believe that there should be only one winner.

Imagine a scenario where the first and second place projects split 90% of the vote (say 46/44) with the other two projects split the other 10%. In that event, I would think that launching the top two would be extremely viable. Consider that Sharky & Uprock both received 20% of the vote and one has already launched and the other will shortly.

I would suggest that in a field of 4 candidates, the winner launches and the 2nd place project also launches if they get at least 40% of the vote (maybe even 35%). This threshold would guarantee that no more than two projects launch.

I don’t see the LFG proposal as a winner take all proposition. Rather, it’s a barometer of how the community feels about a project. It would be a shame to miss out on launching a quality project just because they lost by a few percentage points.

Yes, this hasn’t happened yet and it may never happen. But it would be smart to be proactive and set the parameters now instead of being reactive later.

56

The Selection Process:

We’ve got two main types of candidates popping up in the blog:

  • Those who are totally prepped with an active app and community, just looking to leverage the LFG.
  • And then, well, there’s the other group.

And I guess that’s okay. There are tons of small, underfunded, understaffed projects out there with revolutionary ideas… they just lack the resources or connections to be truly effective without a bit of… help. But the problem is, I’m not sure we’re actually reaching these folks. The LFG selection feels a bit like a cross between “Survivor” and “The Bachelor.” Unfortunately, it seems we might be snagging the worst parts of both shows: on one side, we’ve got Rupert stealing shoes, and on the other, that damn pretty boy winning everything.

I see the foundation as solid, but the processes? They lead to potential manipulation and abuse.

Improvement Suggestions:

  1. Vet all applicants/applications:
  • I’m not saying I want everyone doxxed or the applications pre-screened for content. I just think a minimum standard should be set and then enforced before any application or applicant ever interacts with the community. You know, things that have been mentioned endlessly in the comments before mine…
  1. Clarify the types of projects we are capable of launching and look to methods to streamline the application process:

Group 1: Ready to Go

  • So, for those projects that are fully fleshed out Dapps with strong communities… they basically want us purely for the transaction. The main benefit for them is the prestige and reach of the platform launch, not so much the community feedback process or active assistance. I think this group should be streamlined.
    • Submit the application to the entity in charge of processing initial applications (probably a WG).
    • Check all the boxes for a project RTG.
    • Introduction to the community.
    • Short feedback process.
    • Community vote—yes or no.

Group 2: Problem Child
What if an applicant doesn’t check all those boxes for a project ready to go? This is where the community can shine. Send those applicants to the LFG community launchpad forum, where we conduct the same processes as our first two votes. How far does a project have to be to be considered? Do they need to at least be in Beta? Or have an MVP? What if they just have a really good idea? This is where the community can really make a difference, I think. The level of competence in a group of 400k super nerds can’t be understated.

Instead of a “Survivor” style fight to the finish, we could foster an environment where we mentor these budding projects and help them reach their potential.

I kinda feel like I should be singing “Kumbaya” while holding hands with everyone. I blame @meow, lol.

Jupiter LFG… what does ‘LFG’ stand for?
“Looking for Group”? “Let’s F*****g Go”? I’m a bit embarrassed to tell you that ChatGPT told me it meant “Launchpad for Good.” I guess I’ll believe ChatGPT… this time sigh.

Launchpad for Good… so why are we spending so much energy on beauty contests and bribery?
That might be a bit strong, but I definitely see the foundations for that type of thing building… and this is just round 2.

The solution? Clarity!

  • Define behavioral standards for applicants.
  • Define minimum standards for applicant projects.
  • Explore alternate methods of progressing through the LFG ‘pipeline.’
  • Explore alternate governance methods to ensure fair, representative voting.
  • Clarify reward structures and timelines.

I don’t know how critical this post is coming off as… but the reality is that, in general, I’m a pretty critical guy. Having said that, even with the teething pains, I think we are doing pretty good. The team is awesome and the community is engaged.

Nuff said.

4 Likes
57

This comment made me stop. It’s an intriguing idea. I mean, there is definite room for vote manipulation…but that’s not really the problem, is it? it’s REWARD manipulation i’m more concerned about. I mean, who can really get mad at the kid who gets the fake id in order to vote? Still…i can see shenanigans happening when votes that begin impacting wallets start popping up on the docket.
hmmm…maybe link both Discord and your Wallet in order to participate in governance…That won’t eliminate sybil type behaviors, but it would erect considerable roadblocks to wide-scale manipulation.

anyways…great idea! i think it deserves consideration!

58

New proposal Pay platform fee for Limited Order and DCA with Jup token

3 Likes
59

This is something I strongly believe @Slorg @kemosabe & all @CWG should really consider. This sort of ideas of implement will be what makes JUP DAO stand out. @meow @ co has this been debated in your circle? Hope this idea doesn’t disappear in here without some consideration.

1 Like
60

I like this idea also. It can help to prevent real-world bribery. Imagine I have a million JUP staked. Imagine I go to a Web 3 event where I visit numerous projects to learn about them. I casually mention the LFG launchpad and how it works and encourage various projects who are going to launch in the future to submit an application when they are ready and to let me know if I can help because I really like their project and would seriously CONSIDER voting for them, wink wink. I wonder if anyone would offer me anything on the side to secure my 1 million votes? What do you think? 1 person, 1 vote. I like it.

1 Like
61

using the 1 million staked JUP example, considering that there are, atm approx 285 million staked Jup, assuming 10% don’t vote in the relevant LFG Launchpad, then a vote of 1 million staked JUP for a project that has a side deal with a few whales, isn’t really going to move the dial when approx 250 to 260 million votes are going to be cast in the projects being offered. Its not even .5% of the total vote.

1 Like
62

Agreed, 1 million JUP doesn’t move the needle that much, but I was just trying to point out how this type of thing can happen. The reality is that no one wins a launch with 100% of the vote and you don’t have to be #1 to launch either. You just have to be #2. You can win #2 with as little as 20% of the vote. So about 50 million votes to launch. Even a project that doesn’t win the vote gets 2-5% of the vote which is about 5-10 million votes. So a project just needs to try to figure out how to get as close to 40-45 million votes as possible. And 1 vote for project ‘A’ is 1 less vote for project ‘B’. Also, many seed investors know each other and invest in the same projects so to pool votes would not be out of the realm of possibility. To your point, it would probably take around 13 million (about 5%) JUP to make a real difference in the vote. The last 2 votes 20% secured the #2 spot. If 5% shifted from the #2 project to the #3 project, that could flip who wins.

2 Likes