-
I appreciated all the new changes. Knowing that I voted was great because unfortunately I thought I had voted for Zeus previously but there was no way to know. It made me feel that not showing if you voted or who you voted for was being manipulated. Although, I still feel there was something fishy going on because I was always able to know that I voted for the cutest animal. I was a bit gutted to realize that my Zeus vote hadn’t went through until after the vote.
-
I wish on the jup.ag homepage there is a “Vote” button, a vote countdown timer, and whether or not you have voted. Jup stakers are the most integral part of the protocol so keeping them up-to-date and prepared for the candidates well in advance by posting reminders on the homepage of swapping page would be excellent for JUP stakers.
-
More clear information about the candidates and especially the tokenomics and incentives is probably the most important to know for the majority of JUP stakers.
All launchpad candidates should be requested to give a clear position regarding:
- Tokenomics
- How they will reward LFG DAO voters:
a) Is reward airdrop (preferred)
b) Is extra steps required to get reward after DAO voting (not preferred)
Above information should be received from all launchpad participants before they are accepted in.
This would be ideal but the problem then becomes people splitting their $JUP into multiple wallets so they can vote more than once. Technically inclined users would be able to do this programmatically to create thousands of wallets.
I think splitting Jupiter tokens via multiple wallets and then staking, would allow for them to vote more than once, but their voting power would still be the same as if all the staked Jupiter was held in one wallet only.
Bad idea. Then what’s the point of JUP?. This idea of having 1 million $JUP and still your vote only counts as 1 would just kill JUP. It would become pointless staking all your JUP. Just stake 1 JUP and sell the rest. This would kill the value and price of $JUP in an instant.
And it could also be exploited this way:
Imagine someone with 1 million JUP, being able to create 1 million different wallets with programs. That would be crazy and there would be massive manipulation.
The current system works well.
-
I loved the UI upgrades displaying past votes.
-
I completely agree changes should be made strategically, and am looking forward for us to keep experimenting slowly.
That being said, I’d love to explore the possibility of the Dao refining the process in which a project becomes a candidate… to such a degree, that we would somehow reach a stage where we would be voting a “yes”, or “not yet”, for each project.
I imagine, at some point, the simple stage of becoming a candidate (and maybe securing a minimum percentage of votes), translating into a launch.
The effort and time invested by the DAO for a project that actually wins is pretty much on par with the effort the dao invests in projects that don’t win. Same attention and effort invested equally in all candidates (before the vote ends).
SO… I hope, one day… JUP Dao will be worth enough for this effort alone to be sufficient in justifying an allocation of a candidates supply, to Jup Dao. In the end, just because Zeus and Sharky won, doesn’t mean the Dao was not interested in UpRock, and that case could be made for any LFG voting round. And, to some extent, Dao members invest the same amount of effort researching and contributing to all those communities, up to the end of the vote.
Is the next phase, in which they actually launch, really that much more valuable to be the only deciding factor in whether the dao receives an allocation or not? (If the answer is yes, I wonder, how we rebalance that scale? How do we become, clearly, at least as cool as the tech is??)
I’m wondering all this because the loss of the voting round is not an indication of us not being interested, is just an indication of us being interested in something else, MORE.
I do understand what a challenge it would become for people to not just vote yes on everything, but at the same time, I don’t see why, with quite a few Jup Dao members now playing the Nyan Heroes game for example, we would just not let them launch in this round, instead of potentially have them launch on a separate platform. This is just an example, and this case could be made for other candidates that didn’t rank top 2.
This is just my thoughts on the whole process and I’m not recommending we do this now, but curious to hear what others think of this approach.
3.1 “Hide the results before the vote ends”. I understand where this suggestion stems from and would love for us to find one or many ways to encourage people to actually research what they vote, before they vote. I agree, it is very likely a factor for some, seeing the current winner; but I don’t think hiding the results is an actual solution to the cause of the disease, it’s more an attempt to treat the symptoms. Mainly because voting is onchain and that data is available to anyone. It could be only a matter of time before a community member builds a tool that you can use to check current results. But just as important, I believe we should enpower Dao members with information so they can make as an informed decision as they can/want, and I feel like hiding data conflicts with that.
3.2 " Candidates Tokenomics".
About a candidates tokenomics, it’s good practice to know, everyone agrees with that; the question is whether you feel it should be mandatory for projects to disclose that before the vote starts… I’d have said: Why not let the Dao vote on how important that is? “Oh well, we did, and it looks like it was not a deciding factor for the majority?” That’s also not fair to say. Members have reached out to all projects regarding tokenomics before the vote, because it is important, and Sanctum tweet about the community participating in creating that was a response, to the “pressure” the dao put, regarding tokenomics. So, in a way, we are already enforcing that, but not making it officially mandatory leaves room for creative stuff like Sanctum approach, which I think is a very cool experiment, that I’m intrigued by, and would rather participate in, than not.
J4J 
UX suggestion. Insert a column with Voting Power for each proposal. If there isn’t enough room, delete the Results column. It’s pretty useless anyway.
After going through the feedback from this post and the town hall, we present you with the proposed changes we wish to implement going into round 3 of LFG.
Please feel free to leave any feedback on any of the items here which you like or dislike.
Informational Changes:
-
A DAO twitter that will cover DAO information and announcements such as votes. Additionally, it will put out an announcement every day of a live vote.
This will be a collaborative approach with the Jupiter team to help ensure the account is able to propagate properly, but it will reduce the burden on the main JUP account so that items are not competing with product announcements, and also giving WG members access.
-
Additional clarity around ASR:
Some people still do not fully understand ASR yet. There are UI changes which the team is working on to help remedy this. In addition, the CWG and catdets have worked on some informational resources so far. However, we will make an effort to ensure this topic is more understood whenever we have chances to do so, such as mentioning it deliberately during the twitter spaces that coincide with the start of the vote.
-
Video Explainers for votes:
Some people learn much better through video content than written content, which explains the success of platforms like tiktok and youtube shorts. One idea is to create or source short videos that are embedded on the vote page and can serve as an alternative to the written summary. This could be presented in multiple different formats including but not limited to: 30 second pitches from the candidates, in-depth explainers, talking head videos, or supercuts of the candidates interviews.
We are unsure if this could be implemented in the upcoming vote, but regardless we are open to assistance from any cadets who would like to get involved.
-
Creating a Calendar to more accurately display the timeline of the LFG process.
We want to permit for some degree of flexibility, but showing a high level overview of how we anticipate the process to pan out over the course of weeks can give people a better idea of when it is most important to pay attention. At least some sort of tentative calendar.
Process Changes:
-
We propose reducing the number of winners from 2 to 1.
To ensure adequate competition, the prestige of launching with Jupiter, and that the highest quality candidates are continuously chosen, we believe that launching a single project per round will ensure that adequate attention is paid to the launch of each token.
It is about the quality of time spent between the Jupiter community, team and CWG with each and every project.
Additionally, it is unfair for second-place winners to be overshadowed by first-place winners. The pacing of launches is subject to change and in terms of candidates, we believe 4-6 is still an optimal number. However, the number of candidates may vary depending on both market and social conditions, as well as the quality of applicants in any given month.
This will also allow us and the Jupiter team to more intimately focus on each winner after each launch to help deliver the best launch experience possible.
However, we are open to exceptions in the case that votes are insanely close. Such as in the case that first and second place in a vote have 45 and 44% respectively. We will stay vigilant in regards to this and listen to the community.
-
AMAs shifting over to twitter spaces:
Discord AMAs have proven difficult to be consistent in terms of audio quality (with 30% of the audience not able to hear at times, CWG members unable to speak, recordings failing despite redundancies etc), and have a lower surface area for less engaged community members. Additionally, it comes with an intrinsic recording and publishing function and provides for another opportunity to broadcast LFG candidates publicly.
-
LFG Candidate Roles in Discord
Candidates need a specific role to be effectively pinged for questions, one that is not catdet — which is how it has been done until now. Also keeping catdet separate from it is important to maintaining the integrity of the role.
Changes We Want More In-depth Discussion On:
-
Blind Voting:
This has been a topic of vigorous debate, and does not have an immediate and obvious answer.
Arguments on the For side include: It reduces herd behavior, it might reduce people who vote strategically, it enhances voter confidence, and encourages more deliberate voting.
Arguments Against include: Reduced transparency, potentially decreases engagement (people cast vote instead of discussing more), the potential for surprise outcomes, the fact that it isn’t actually hidden on-chain, and the fact that people cannot make adjustments in response to use feedback live.
We are open to trialing out blind voting for LFG round 3, but we would first like to invite additional community discussion on the topic as this is the most contentious of all the suggestions with strong arguments both for and against.
Please consider my thoughts on blind voting and recommend we keep the status quo.
- Transparency : Blind voting conceals voter identities, potentially undermining transparency crucial for accountability and trust within the DAO.
- Accountability : Open voting makes voters responsible for their decisions, which not only encourages thoughtful participation but also acts as a deterrent against malicious intent, thereby fostering a more accountable and responsible voting culture.
- Diversity of Opinions : Transparent voting allows members to understand the rationale behind each vote, encouraging diverse perspectives and informed decision-making.
- Risk of Manipulation : Blind voting introduces the risk of manipulation or coercion as it obscures individual preferences, potentially skewing outcomes towards hidden agendas.
- Community Engagement : Open voting promotes community engagement and discourse, which is essential for building a cohesive and participatory DAO ecosystem.
- Learning and Improvement : Transparent voting provides learning opportunities from successful and failed decisions, facilitating iterative improvement of governance processes.
In conclusion, the potential benefits of blind voting, such as anonymity, pale in comparison to the advantages of open voting, which include transparency, accountability, diverse perspectives, and community engagement. Therefore, open voting should be the clear and preferred choice for the JUP DAO.
Regards
Ari3iz.sol
Looking good! I’m thinking if certain metrics should be forced for all the candidates, such as clear and transparent tokenomics.
RE: Blind Voting
I think we need to define what we actually mean by “blind voting” first. I’ve seen a large portion of the debate come down to different interpretations of what we’re talking about.
Obviously on chain data will always be there, and good for the people savvy enough research it. But I don’t think this a large percentage of people.
I think obscuring the current vote totals for each project in the UI, until voting has closed, will reduce “herd behavior”. Continue to show voters: what they voted for, their voting power they voted with, and the total votes cast. Maybe also show the total number of unique wallets as well, while the vote is ongoing.
When the voting closes, show the vote totals by project, along with a number of voting statistics for transparency. Maybe some infographics like:
-
Average voting power per wallet
-
Top 10 wallets by voting power & What they voted for
-
Project with most unique wallet votes
-
Project with least unique wallet votes
Both sides can debate all they want but we really won’t know until we see it in action. No one or nothing will be irreparably harmed by trying it for a measure or two so I say let’s give it a go.
EDIT: Just realized I didn’t specify that I was referring to blind voting.
Agreed! At least as an experiment. Could imagine this reduces voting.
Blind voting: you can see your votes, voting totals are not shown until the vote has closed. I think this is good, and it’s a requirement for unlocking the wisdom of the crowds
Hidden votes: no one can see how you voted. I can’t see an upside for this (but there might be) and it has a lot of potential for misuse
- DAO twitter makes sense.
- Video clarifier makes sense.
- Please with the calendar, NEED.
- I’m against 1 winner instead of 2, I don’t have much evidence to back this up, but I do feel like the 2nd place of the last vote was picked by majority of the community and 1st place was picked by whale wallets. Obviously there was still overlap, but if winners get down to 1, I would see the whales just having complete majority of who gets selected and who doesn’t - and of course they will pick teams that benefit them - linear airdrops instead of tier based like something the community would pick. I know that’s not the only metric in how to select a winner, but it does exemplify a portion of the incentive structure for voters. If the community doesn’t feel like it has a proper say on voting and everything is determined by whale wallets, this would be detrimental to DAO participation and engagement. I realize I could be totally off with some of my assumptions here, but I think it does adequately display my concern for reducing number of winners to 1.
- I’m indifferent on blind voting, as it doesn’t affect me much, but I could argue both sides and am not in tune with the nuances enough to have a distinct preference either way.
Agree with most of the points, but what’s the point of #1? Active Staking will reward voters linearly (depending on the amount of staked JUP) so if they want to spend extra SOL on transactions it’s up to them no one gets hurt but themselves. And given that JUP encouraged splitting the vote if you like 2 different projects, it might explain what you observed
I think ranked choice voting would work best, with (let’s say} 5 points that you can distribute as you see fit (like “all points to your fav project” “1pt for each” “half and half for these two” etc). It would also reduce the effect from projects trying to bribe the vote
sorry, that’s not a good idea. during these past votes a lot of people have learned things they missed and even new information came to light, imagine not being able to react to that. then everybody would be voting at the last minute and congestion (+ fees) would be awful
I think “we’ll reward those who vote for us, whether we win or not” is OK, because yes such voters might win those extra tokens but are encouraged to vote for the best projects anyways by the fact that winning projects will launch and thus distribute tokens to voters --that is, voting for a strong project will get you tokens that will perform well.
But “we’ll reward those who vote for us only if we win” might encourage enough voters to go with whoever is already ahead in the vote --that is, could create a self-fulfilling prophecy where the project that manages to secure an initial lead wins the vote