Were there any aspects which you particularly liked?
The blind vote was a “game changer” for Jupiter’s voting system. It removes the frontrunner’s influence on decision-making, thus reducing the “herd mentality” commonly observed in votes with real-time data display. From my observations, I’ve noticed an increase in community dialogues focusing on the participants. This is noticeably in contrast to previous rounds, where the majority simply supported the first runner.
What improvements would you like to see?
I suggest the addition of a new category for small to medium capitalization projects, named as “Establishing Projects”, guided by particular criteria. This could provide benefits to all parties involved, such as:
- Decreased investor risk¹
- Support small to medium capitalization projects
- Increase the benefits to Jupiter’s community
This improvement was suggested in response to the Low Float, High FDV model that has been gaining traction recently, delivering unsatisfactory results in the mid- to long term. I published this study: Proposal: New Category for LFG Launchpad - Low Float, High FDV overview which includes a possible solution for LFG Launchpad.
¹ Over the past six months, most of projects listed on Binance are down more than 80% from listing price date
Did you like the blind voting? Should we keep it for future votes?
Yes, this blind voting system was a sound decision as it effectively eliminated the “noise” caused by the frontrunner. In my opinion, this is a crucial change to keep in the upcoming rounds.
Thoughts around a vote timer that prevents you from voting for X amount of time?
I think we should move forward with testing in the next phase, allowing the community to evaluate its effectiveness.