Just sharing UXUI feedback, not aiming to criticize
Finding the governance site is tricky. I always start at https://jup.ag/ but there’s no direct link to Governance. I have to navigate through https://station.jup.ag/, which isn’t straightforward.
The proposal page could be simplified. Currently, you have to click “View discussion” to see project details, and it’s spread over multiple pages. It should be more streamlined.
Summarizing project details briefly would help voters make decisions more easily.
Overall the voting process was very smooth. I love that people get rewarded for participating in the vote. I think the best area of improvement is trying to align metrics across candidates. As I was preparing to vote, I really wished there was an easy way to compare all the candidates on one table. One version of this would be asking them the same questions and seeing all the responses side by side. Another would be what I did myself was to create a table of the tokenomics compared and again as a community member and just based on data readily available there were many comparison gaps. If you need community members to volunteer to do this but in a more formal process and with candidates, i would be happy to volunteer. It is important to read things in detail from each candidate as well as see how they approach the information that is being asked of them, but as a voter, I would greatly appreciate comparison views. Also, to avoid people skipping to the comparison, could gate it to see if people have reviewed all the detailed content. Just an idea. Overall again happy to be part of this very active DAO in a meaningful way and will continue to find opportunities to help.
If voting results will be hidden, then show the vote counts and total for each lfg candidate but with the lfg candidate names hidden and only to reveal after the voting completion
I think it’s a good time for building a big circle and grow up together, JUP4JUP is another level DAO, full support for Jupiter Exchange for the future
With regards to candidates who did not win perhaps # 3 gets a pass to the next round and the others have a chance at winning a spot sort of a mini parachain auction of sorts similar to the Polkadot system?
So 2 would go through to the next round .ATB
Joe
1. 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?
All start back at the forum, reset to 0 to make it fair for everyone applying.
2. What do we do in the event that there aren’t 6 viable candidates?
Postpone until there are 6 to reduce the chance of terrible projects being launched just we can have launches. Quality>quantity. The chance of there being less than 6 is low.
3. How do we re-introduce candidates who were in prior rounds and already had AMAs
They didn’t win so have to go through the whole process again, no ifs and buts.
4. Were there any parts the DAO didn’t like or felt could be better?
The current DAO feels like a bubble of CWG and their friends and the guys with roles. Give cats of culture or catdets to 100k+ JUP holders. We are serious investors in the project and/or OGs. Currently some random people with poor decision making are farming and being nice to get the roles instead of those who can make a change or give solid feedback. This doesn’t apply for all with roles. Powerusers are powerusers because they make an impact and I would bet they can make a larger impact in serious discussions compared to discord role farmers.
Voting should be hidden until voting has been completed.
In my opinion this should not be automatic. The project should decide and actively apply for second round. If they do, there should be a shortcut, no need to start at the beginning. But it’s probably also necessary to limit the number of unsuccessful votes until a project is rejected for good.
There should be a vote with less options. It may be a good idea to add a “none” option. Any option with less votes than “none” should be considered unsuccessful, which means it’s possible that no project is chosen. If there is only one candidate, there should still be a yes/no vote.
They should get the option to update their introductory posts, and there should be a new AMA (questions will probably focus mostly on what changed since the last AMA).
Handling of transaction timeouts wasn’t ideal. It looked as if the vote was unsuccessful, but actually it went through. There should be clearer instructions what to do in this case and what to look for (e.g. "refresh the site and check if it says “you voted”). After voting, the option that the user voted for should be shown much more prominently (different color and background).
There were rumors of projects or supporters bribing voters. This should be disencouraged. Of course in practice this will be hard to do if the people doing the bribing have no clear association with the project.
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?
any project that would like to try again should be allowed to reapply with all the work they’ve already done. Why redo work if it’s not necessary?
What do we do in the event that there aren’t 6 viable candidates?
this is a good question. And the answer would only be applicable if the vote results are hidden.
If there’s only 4-5 candidates.
The top voted candidate gets to launch.
The second most voted candidate needs > minimum %. You guys come up with the math to make it fair.
- therefore, if 2nd place only beats others by low %, do another vote with the remaining candidates or only launch 1 project.
- if 2nd place meets minimum % target, there are 2 launches without requiring a second vote.
if there’s 3 candidates, only launch 1.
How do we re-introduce candidates who were in prior rounds and already had AMAs
Redo all AMAs. As others have mentioned crypto is a hyperbolic time chamber. 1month = 1year. So let’s give everyone a platform to share the project at the present time. So DAO can consider the freshest information.
Were there any parts the DAO didn’t like or felt could be better?
I have a design suggestion to the voting process.
This suggestion attempts to lower the number of voting wallets further and encourage people to understand the LFG voting procedure/principles/candidates etc.
Votes are only important if they are informed.
To prove each vote is an informed one, before people can cast their vote, they should complete a randomly generated, easy quiz. 5-10 questions should be enough without being a friction point for those voting with multiple wallets.
Get a passing grade 80-100% and the voting options become available.
I believe an informed DAO is just as important if not more so than an active one. On the same note, I believe having check points along the way will not only give DAO members a sense of belonging but also encourage more actively seek participation and understanding with stronger alignment of interests.
I hope I can get some feedback on this post. Anyone?
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?
$AHA reply: NO, give opportunity to DAO to choose, unless the volume is within 5% different from 2nd place, so close, then it would be reasonable to advanced to next round.
What do we do in the event that there aren’t 6 viable candidates?
$AHA reply: select 1 out of 2 as winner, then runner up moved to next round. still allow to be voted for best 2 candidates.
How do we re-introduce candidates who were in prior rounds and already had AMAs
$AHA reply: Let DAO vote on selected candidates for the 2nd selection and limit to 2 or 3 chances. Updated AMA is great to showcase improvement.
Were there any parts the DAO didn’t like or felt could be better?
$AHA reply: Voting result could be hidden until end.
comparision chart as mentioned is just better visibility for candidates.
voter can’t change vote.
JUP need more time for preparation as initial timeframe was at 10pm but then no updates until 11:30pm to start is unrealistic to make DAO voters waiting for unspecify time. We respected JUP project but moving voting time at last minute without sharing that info is bad project management and respects DAO voters time too. This also proves JUP professionalism too.
I agree with many comments here that hiding the votes would be beneficial to avoid herd mentality.
I myself voted for a project that was not leading and even if I had strong convictions in my choice I psychologically felt pressure. I think it’s a well known mechanism that needs to be taken into account.
On a different note, I felt that apart from sharky and banx offering similar projects (with all the differences of course), it was difficult to pick a choice among protocols that are so different.
Maybe we could consider grouping projects into categories and proceed to vote for each category separately.
For example NFT lending and borrowing. And you would have Frakt and Banx and more protocols competing and bribing and trying to sell their unique points of value.
I think it would be a way to push further innovation too on similar protocols.
1. 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?
In my opinion we are a DAO and we should make decisions as a DAO. Therefore, a vote should launch where the DAO can vote yes or no on each of the projects that didn’t launch. If it reaches the threshold of 75% for an overwhelming majority then they should be allowed to stay. If they don’t then they should go through the CWG to determine if they are better than the other applications.
2. What do we do in the event that there aren’t 6 viable candidates?
In the case there are less than 6 candidates and we don’t vote the people who have locked their $JUP are not receiving a reward. The pessimist would say that this would cause people to start unlocking their $JUP and that depending on the waiting time could lead to losing some of the candidates who are ready to launch. However, if there’s only one or two candidates then DAO does not have much of a choice. So if there’s more than 2 but less than 6, I think we should pick one candidate and the runner up gets an automatic pass into the next vote, with the remaining participants receiving a ballot on a vote to keep or remove. If there’s two or less then we should just wait.
3. How do we re-introduce candidates who were in prior rounds and already had AMAs
Returning candidates should be required to answer a new set of question relating to the improvements they have made over the previous LFG process. If they come back these questions will be asked during their AMA’s so it makes sense to let the projects get ahead of pessimism. Questions along the lines of:
a. What did you learn from your previous experience on the LFG process?
b. Why do you think you deserve another chance?
c. What are you doing better now?
4. Were there any parts the DAO didn’t like or felt could be better?
I would like a dedicated space for DAO proposals. If a proposal meets some threshold of interaction then I would like for them to be reviewed by some one who can review and forward the proposal.
It would be nice if the voting portal showed accumulated rewards as well as a date in which they will be distributed.
I would appreciate if part of the application process for new projects is to have their tokenomics decided and shared during introductions or at least before AMAs.
Especially, considering this was the first time!