I’d love to see a background check for each founder.
4 Likes
Not a fan of blind voting. IMO, changing your vote is something you shouldn’t be able to do.
1 Like
this is a good idea, i commented on your post. Do you envision there being two separate votes ? so one for each category each month? ie Established and less established projects?
2 Likes
I’ll keep it brief, all changes were definitely welcome with an emphasis on blind voting and the calendar.
Would love to see a 30 second-1min video breakdown that projects can pitch to say what their projects are trying to accomplish. With that posted on the voting page I think it can be an educational opportunity and with sources to direct further education to spark further interest would be so valuable.
1 Like
GM GM,
Imo the blind vote www good yea, helped make peeps attend the AMA sections before the vote to know who they’ll vote for, I personally attended all three before coming to the conclusion on who I voted for by doing more research into what they said, I feel it’s a safe part to keep them blind,…great work guys !!!
1 Like
Big big fan of the blind vote, nicely done!
2 Likes
All I can say is, that the voting system works perfectly, it is satisfying and transparent. Good job guys. Future votes can only get better…LFG JUP cadets 
1 Like
This round felt less competitive which might actaully be a good thing. Too early to tell the effectiveness of blind vote but this might have contributed to this round feeling less competitive. The experience of the blind was vote good. Let’s continue to collect data on it.
I do think we need an abstain option and some mechanisms on how to deal with such if abstaining is the majority vote. Currently, if I dont like a project and I’m still forced to vote for one to get the rewards.
1 Like
I still think there needs to be some sort of standard for token rewards to voters, as bribes by some projects offering tokens for voters vs not may be possible to skew the vote.
1 Like
With the 3rd LFG, I really liked the blind vote nature of the vote. It made waiting to see who the winner was much more exciting. Also the 1 winner outcome was also a better outcome for this round. Although all projects were worthy of a win. Comparing the 3rd LFT to the 2nd LFT. I would say the 3rd was much better in terms of voting for a “winner”.
2 Likes
- Were there any aspects which you particularly liked?
The blind voting was a great change, this way the public wasn’t affected by a project in the lead. There were similar discussions in some of my DAOs and most agreed that it was needed!
- What improvements would you like to see?
- Add a TL;DR with tokenomics in the voting page, so people can check again before they confirm their vote
- I saw @buddlestraws’ analysis and would support a new voting round for smaller projects, so everyone can enjoy the benefits. It will be great to support small projects and this way the community could also get more token rewards!
- Did you like the blind voting? Should we keep it for future votes?
It was great and I think it should be kept for the next rounds 
- Thoughts around a vote timer that prevents you from voting for X amount of time?
I think this aspect needs to be explained better to figure out what the advantages of using a vote timer could be 
2 Likes
-
Were there any aspects which you particularly liked?
Blind voting was super idea don’t change it pls, 3 candidates and 1 winner is far better that 4+ candidates and more winners… i know it affect for ASR but its far easier for ppl to make decision…
Thoughts around a vote timer that prevents you from voting for X amount of time?
It could be nice, but i think most ppl already know who for they gonna vote, so max 1-2 min… -
What improvements would you like to see?
During voting period, discord chat was full of ‘’ Okey guys lets debate about our project, guys vote for us, guys we gonna give u this, that if we win… NO let everyone take their decision… its okey to say 2-3 times guys we offer you something if you vote for us, but smapping all day ‘‘lets debate’’ or somekind of shit im not for it.
1 Like
This vote event was a net positive
Better experience overall with the votes hidden until final count(at least from a chat perspective)
For once there were no “who’s winning now so I can vote them” questions and people pushed the project they were convinced about.
Now that the launch is done this is what I think (after looking at both Meteora and the UpRock team):
—-Better comms from both teams. There should been an early announcement on reopening deposits BEFORE IT WAS CLOSED
—-Launching teams should give people the drop when they say they would, avoid early and nasty FUD
—-Reward your users before JUP voters or at the same time. Don’t create a users vs JUP voters scenario.
—-Launching teams shouldn’t lock their chat, or should always provide alternative communication means before they lock it. Locking their chat brings angry members to JUP channels. We can’t make situations clearer than the launching team would explain it.
—- The “anti-bot” from meteora should have clearer communication about the feature especially on the starting and ending prices.
“Starting at VC price” doesn’t exactly describe the process.
—-Keeping fees on the deposit page can make someone conclude that fees are charged on deposits. If it should be there, include a note: “these are not fees on your launchpool deposit.”
—-Meteora needs support and an actual Community Manager if they are going to be a part of LFG launches. TGE on LFG launchpads are high profile and they can’t leave support to community volunteers who can only answer questions to the best of their knowledge.
2 Likes
Yes, have a vote for “Established Projects” and for projects with lower capitalization “Establishing Projects”. This new category would be governed by specific criteria in order to ensure that we can reach small caps with latent potential and a focus on community.
I believe that Jupiter can easily manage two voting rounds per month, but this should be discussed with the CWG in the future.
The objective isn’t to decrease the number of large projects in the vote, rather to encourage greater diversification by introducing smaller projects through LFG Launchpad.
2 Likes
These are separate concerns… what is it about blind voting that you don’t like?
1 Like
It sounds like the clear winner is the blind vote system. That’s a keeper.
Also, AMAs and plenty of time given to assess the different projects was a plus.
Would be interesting to explore how to keep working with those in ranking #2.
Keep up the good work. LFG!
2 Likes
Hello, I think the LFG round #3 was a major success. To answer some of the questions:
-
I really like the blind voting. I also noticed an increase in discussion on the Discord, which is great for educating people on the different projects. I personally learned a lot from these discussions.
-
I’ve seen wake talking about implementing a little “quiz”—like answering 3 questions to test your comprehension about the projects. I think this would be a great addition, as long as you can solve it in under 30 seconds.
-
Yes, definitely keep the blind voting. It’s 1000% better. It also adds some excitement to know who won!
-
Regarding my answer in point 2, I think the quiz is way better than a vote timer. A timer would be quite annoying, to be honest. However, if it would be really short, I’d suggest a kind of pop-up saying something like:
“Your vote matters. For this reason, it is important that you know who you are voting for: .” Then, a button where you have to hold it for 2-3 seconds to acknowledge.
Anyways, I think LFG Round 3 was a major success, and the Jupiter DAO is constantly and consistently improving. Great work!
1 Like
If everything is on chain and I’m not an expert at reading the onchain data, I’m at a disadvantage from people that can and vote accordingly. If this information isn’t on chain, than how can we trust it?
1 Like
It is on chain but the vast majority of folks don’t have the skills to tease out the data. I suppose at some point someone might build a dashboard to share but my real question to you is, how exactly are you at a disadvantage? How you vote has zero affect on the rewards you receive. What advantage is there to knowing who’s in the lead? It doesn’t matter.
The goal of voting is not to “pick the winning side”, it’s for you to vote for the project you like best and that you think will be the most beneficial to the Solana/JUP ecosystem.
2 Likes
The Blind voting is something I was particularly fond of. This needs to stay as a permanent feature. As for improvements, randomized ordering and what not to prevent laziness from having any role in things. Please keep this as a feature for all future votes! As far as a timer goes, I think it is unnecessary. Some people need to really consider before placing their vote.
2 Likes