Blind vote is good. It really makes each vote more preceise, some voters might be swayed to change their votes if they see the projects they voted on, not doing as well as the project that is leading, Which in theory shouldn’t matter, voters gets reward regardless how the end result turns out.
But everybody loves to be on the winning side, nobody likes to lose. So voters now has to really read through what each project is really about. Decide if they want certain feature or support a certain project that they have used in the past.
If there are similar projects that might overlaps / partially covers what 1 of the project might be offering.
Candidates/projects need to be ready to launch their token if they want to be taken into consideration for the voting rounds. It’s unfair that some projects that lost were ready to launch their token and yet the winning project wasn’t ready to launch for a few more months, which in crypto this tends to mean a lot of months away.
Before accepting a project for a voting round, ask their main Devs/Ceo/Owners if they are ready to launch their token as soon as possible. If their answer is no, then let them known to inform the CWG whenever they are ready to launch, so they can be chosen as a candidate eventually when they are ready.
Imagine if only projects that will launch their tokens in 6+ 12+ months away start winning the voting rounds, this will hurt JUP voters and the whole seriousness of the process.
Yes, I liked it and hopefully we keep it.
Some people will be confused and will think something is wrong with the voting page, unless the timer is visible and especifically says “xxx until you can vote, take this time to read about the candidates…” or something along the lines.
Lets put it to test next voting round and see the feedback.
The reduction of winning candidates is good for now, but this should remain flexible to meet needs as the market grows.
I’d like to see an improvement in the quality of project proposals and acceptance criteria including tokenomics being provided prior to being selected as a candidate.
I didn’t notice the vote timer. A better method would be to require the proposal link to be clicked a certain time before the vote: 1 hour, 6 hours, 24 hours? etc… so the voter can digest and chew on the information, discuss with friends, and decide who the best candidate actually is.
Really like the reduction of candidates and only one winner. Also really like the calendar presented at the beginning to show the cadence of events.
I did like the blind voting but don’t think it had a very big impact on this vote. I think name recognition went a long way for deBridge and they were a heavy favorite from the beginning. I think blind voting should be used for several more votes to gather more data.
Not necessarily in favor of a vote timer unless that time is used to gather some useful data. For instance, Divvy seemed to have overwhelming support in Discord but were always well behind in the polls. This makes me wonder where people are getting their DAO info (Discord, Twitter, Telegram, YouTube, etc.). I would like to see a survey for this so we know where to target info propagation for maximum effect. I think a good way to get a lot of replies would be to tie it in with a DAO vote, either as a stand alone subject to ASR or as a precursor to casting a vote for a measure in progress (hence acting as a vote timer of sorts).
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 capitalizationprojects, 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.
I completely agree with your response to question #2. We should only be launching legit projects with highly functional products. Imagine launching “JUP” before the platform was up, running, and proven. The LFG projects should follow Jupiter’s example of how to build a product and launch their token.
I’m all for blind voting, so we can keep it. Was just a little bit down when I found out that the current winner doesn’t even have any plans of when they will do their TGE (no exact date). It was such a huge opportunity wasted for projects who are already considering TGE, and have a nearby specific date in mind.
I’d say we pass on projects that won’t even have their TGE settled/mapped out. Let only those projects whose TGE is already waiting.
overall this vote seemed much improved than the prior voting. I also feel the schedule and timeline of this round was very clearly communicated regarding dates and such. Only thing I noticed this time for further refinement was that the 3 projects were so different in nature it seems hard to choose
Voting description and options were well presented, straight forward with no hidden small print. Keep the format
I’m new to the voting but from my perspective keep it the same
Yes, keep the blind voting format. I’ve been analyzing plenty of very interesting projects and were familiar with the voting choices and could easily choose because of interactions with these projects.
Can we also remove the visual to honor complete blind voting? There was still a visual showing the current standings, someone with some knowledge about the candidates could see who was who.
Blind voting serves the would-be purpose of adding a timer since you can’t just vote with the pack. That alone encourages you to do some research and make your own decision.
I really liked the blind vote. I didnt even notice the timer but I personally do my own research before voting regardless. I would like to see more from the projects like previously mentioned like a short vid or something of that nature. Overall a great success. Im very excited to see what the future holds for JUP & LFG
I ended up liking the blind vote more than I expected, but I would still personally prefer giving people the option to hide or show the results (blind by default, since unseeing is not possible).
People have argued that live results sways the vote to favor projects that are leading early on, but that is difficult/impossible to prove, and it completely dismisses the fact that live results might encourage someone to vote for a project that they want to win but see losing (if results are live and visible), and who might NOT have voted otherwise (thinking their favored project was going to win (or lose) by a lot, so their vote doesn’t matter).
Not everyone is as technically savvy enough to compute live results, and IF they would prefer knowing the current standings, it would be helpful for those to be available to them.
Relates to q3 re blind voting (thumbs up and please keep it). Also liked there being just 1 winner. 2. Instead of just ‘you voted’ afterwards, a nice ‘thank you for voting, your opinion matters’ (or something) might be a warm touch. 3. Yes, blind voting is an improvement. 4. No vote timer, this shouldn’t be stressful but a pleasant experience for Jupiter members.
Blind vote: This is a temporary measure. It encourages holders to understand that the outcome of their vote doesn’t influence their rewards other than potential bonus airdrops from the projects. Does it enchace the evaluation of merits? I doubt that is significatnly shifts the focus toward quality. That said, herd mentality is a thing and should not be ignored. Until the reward system is comprehended by all holders, blind voting fullfills a purpose .Once the idea of a bonus airdrop isn’t a big factor in discussions, we should reconsider imo. Long term i agree with WTP.
