Allow the teams who were not selected to decide if they want to participate in the next voting round. If so allow them to address the Jup Dao and participate in the next voting cycle. There could even a specific voting round for teams who participated 1-2 times without being selected but want to launch to Jup.
Minimum of 4 candidates
Feature them on Jup live session.
Interface can be improved. After a successful vote, not giving the option to resubmit the vote transaction. Better indication of post-voting success.
Should have gone back to the beginning, they didn’t make it because I don’t think they were worthy
Of course the voting period if there are no worthy ones needs to be cancelled, but there still has to be some contribution for the teams and voters involved in it
The second AMA of course to convince voters that they are worthy of entering the LFG section
One thing that I think is very influential in the voting results is that if possible the results of people who have voted are hidden temporarily until the voting time is over, this is for a surprise, so that the candidate’s LFG will campaign more intensively , because if the results are seen before the voting is finished, then many voters will just vote for the candidate who has already received a lot of votes,
I agree with the psychology of herd mentality because I know I changed my vote based on what I saw happening.
Second could we please make it more clear where, when, how we will be getting our rewards?
I think it will be wise to give those projects another chance aftee their reinvent or improve their use cases. I think some them deserve to be considered
How do we handle the one’s who didn’t launch: Do they progress to the 2nd round automatically? Do they all start back at the forum?
I don’t think anyone should just be pushed forward but they should be able re-enter as many times as they like. If as part of a wholistic look at all the options, they feel return projects haven’t improved they needn’t be moved forward again. I think they’ll also have the benefit of name recognition and more time to have work on some previous critiques vs. a brand new project.
What do we do in the event that there aren’t 6 viable candidates?
Perhaps a threshold, where if there are less than 6 candidates only 1 is chose instead of two. If there are only two viable candidates, then voting is paused for that period, another call is put out and the previous two projects are automatically included, with four additional projects from the new batch. I think as long as there are a minimum of 3, we can select 1.
So:
6 viable candidates - 2 selected to launch
3-5 viable candidates - 1 selected to launch
1-2 candidates - no vote and selected project(s) moved into next round
0 Candidates - not vote and another selection round
How do we re-introduce candidates who were in prior rounds and already had AMAs
They can re-present new material as they feel appropriate and/or direct people to previous answers from prior entries.
Were there any parts the DAO didn’t like or felt could be better?
n.a
Also agree on points made above regarding:
-hiding vote counts
a banner on the homepage showing date and time when votes open and how long the long remains left in the voting period.
Also maybe a banner on the jup.ag page directing people here and/or to the voting page.
Enjoyed the process so far. Definitely agree with your metrics on a personal level. If the process is all about fairness of representation then you’ve done a great job!!
I voted, and I didn’t change my vote.
I don’t understand why anyone would change their vote.
However, it was a very successful process, with thousands of cat voters!!!
Everything is attractive but I think in the simplest case at the end of each vote the rewards should be calculated and displayed. This can help motivate others
For me the process was smooth, and the fact we get rewarded for voting even if our candidate looses the pool is amazing, just noticed some bugs on the LFG site that can be fixed before the next event. Great job CWG
That was very simple to do , everything was mentioned clearly, the advertisement was huge
Let’s go that is going to be great you are building the future
I wanted to write this too, I have 2 questions.
1- It said that we could vote for two different projects at the same time, but when I wanted to vote for the other project, only the “change the game” option appeared. I don’t want to change my vote, I want to vote for two projects I like.
2- You said that we have as many voting rights as we lock up. I locked 200 jups, but I could only vote 2 times, but it did not allow for the 3rd one.
Thanks
We’d obviously love to advance to the next round automatically, but we certainly don’t think it’s unreasonable to go back to the forum. If this is the selected outcome, we’d suggest that the new forum post has a link to the previous post and discussion (and we would also plan to summarize some of the discussion points from the previous round, if we start back at the forum).
We actually believe that the AMA and related potion of the process are very important. I suppose if a project wanted to substantially reuse what they’d done before, sure, but we’d prefer to do the AMA again and share recent updates. However , we would also hope that links would be provided to previous AMA &c. Of course, we’re sure that there was a lot of work on the part of the jup team to make some of the graphics, etc, which should totally get reused. But from our perspective, we consider the AMA an important part engaging with the community and building support.
To echo what others have said, we’d love it if the exact vote totals were hidden until the round was closed. We’re not sure exactly how this would be implemented (encrypt the project names in the actual vote contract and only unveil after the vote, maybe? This would still allow analysis of the overall voting, but just not until the votes were complete and the candidates were unveiled) We don’t have an opinion on the question of bribing, per se, but we do posit this: the most “rational actor” actions for a voter, once the winners are clear, is to change their vote to the “best bribe”. The reasoning being that as long as the overall outcome is acceptable, then the rational actor move is to achieve the highest bribe possible with your vote, since your vote, individually, won’t change the aggregate outcome. It’s actually quite interesting to us that more people didn’t switch to get the bribe at the end.
Loved to see the whole process despite not being as involved as I wanted to be! One issue I think is that 6 projects feels like too much information to process for the average voter in the given time.
While you guys did a great job consolidating & communicating the info, it’s still a lot of info when each project can have complex systems to understand, especially when they are in different industry sectors. I think many voters would have wanted to understand each candidate better, but instead opted for the easy route of herd voting for a popular one.
Either reducing the batch of projects at each instance, or increasing time, could help with this issue. Another idea could be to assign community KOLs for each project (with an incentive) who manage answering questions and presenting info about that project to smaller groups of people, instead of putting that burden all on you guys. Even a short review of the basic concepts/assumptions in that industry sector would help people understand the context. Threads on X are fine, but most people learn better if someone is there to hold their hand.
A “loser’s bracket”, if you will, would be an interesting idea for the projects that did not acquire enough votes. Giving them additional opportunities to highlight their project, with essentially less “noise” on account of the competition being smaller.
This could help them reach and connect with a wider/new audience.
I agree with some of the others here that recommended that there should be a “minimum” set amount of projects (a number i saw was 3) with room for additional entries up to a certain amount (6).
I’d prefer not to see the votes while the voting window is open. I believe it could sway voters from their original vote. Also, I had numerous people ask me how they could know if their vote was recorded. Maybe make it more obvious? Not sure, I didn’t have this problem.
Overall, it was an awesome process and was really well executed! Looking forward to future votes.
