how can we believe the winner will use the launchpad fee with fully caution?
2 Likes
My 2 lamports…
Projects not selected for any particular round should NOT automatically advance to the next round. They should go back into the general pool of all projects applying to see which ones make the cut for the next round.
Projects that have already had an AMA from a previous round should do a follow up AMA to discuss changes, updates, lessons learned, etc.
Fewer than 6 viable candidates? I feel like 3 is an acceptable number for which to hold a vote. Fewer than 3 and voting should be postponed.
I would also like to see “None of the Above” as a voting choice. Maybe even implement a minimum percentage threshold in order to launch (i.e., 35% of the total vote).
Voting totals should be hidden until the vote has concluded.
7 Likes
I want to point out the issue of Candidates giving out extra incentives for voting for them ;
The move of making the rewards equal whoever you vote to is obviously a great one and sadly gets voided by the projects offering extra rewards if you vote for them.
Sadly web3 users will automatically vote for the project with most rewards , Such practices should discouraged and penalized.
3 Likes
Hey,
I am not 100% sure if it has been said, I may have missed it sorry if this is a repeat.
Do we think it would be a potential to have more than 1 vote, say you have 5000 JUP staked and so you have 5000 voting power. This would mean you chose to allocate all 5k power to 1 vote, but would it be possible to add in a mechanism that allows you to spread a vote(s) say 2500 to project 1 and 2500 project 2.
Thanks!
4 Likes
[quote=“VontariusF, post:3, topic:10991”]
Is there the potential to mask results until the voting period is over in order to mitigate this?
[/quote] Absolutely brilliant idea and I agree wholeheartedly.
I think the effect is real when we see the “current winner” vs blind results based on our own observations at times.
Similar to food shows that are doing judging based on not knowing who cooked the meal, apples perfectly here.
3 Likes
One other thing that can be improved is the posting of replays/recordings of the CWG Townhalls for those that are unable to listen in live. Still don’t know why the most recent one isn’t available yet almost three days later.
7 Likes
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?
I think we could consider a runner-up that doesn’t need to go through the whole process again, maybe with a minimum threshold of votes.
On that thought, we could also consider a yes/no vote on each project rather than selecting the top one (similar to Baseball Hall of Fame Voting, a certain threshold such as 75% yes would be required to be approved). This might be more of a meritocracy approach since right now we could have a really good project not get launched simply because it was paired with an even better one.
2. What do we do in the event that there aren’t 6 viable candidates?
Again, the idea I shared above addresses this. There would never be any issue with not having 6 candidates. If we keep the setup as-is, then it might be more important to ensure we have 6, (or some minimum number like say 4) so that the threshold is consistent across rounds.
3. How do we re-introduce candidates who were in prior rounds and already had AMAs
Go through the process again, but repurpose some of the content from the past AMA. Add in new questions like “what have you improved since the last vote?”.
4. Were there any parts the DAO didn’t like or felt could be better?
Reiterating here that pitting projects against each other doesn’t make sense. Instead we should let users vote yes/no on each eligible project, with a minimum threshold of yes votes required for it to be approved, could be somewhere around 75%.
3 Likes
After combing the comments and hosting a Townhall, we present you with the 3 main points from the community, and our synthesis:
1. How do we handle the projects who didn’t launch?
DAO: “We believe that they should either start back at the forum stage, or automatically qualify for the next round if they reach a certain %. Also, there should potentially be a limit to the number of attempts before they are rejected or subjected to a cooldown”
CWG Thinking:
For any project that obtains >10%, they are automatically introduced into the subsequent round. This happens once before they are kicked back to the forum stage.For any project with <10%, they must start over at the Forum Stage.
We wish to grandfather in the 3 projects who did not win round 1 with an opportunity to come back, and then going forward we would implement this standard.
2. How do we handle candidates from prior rounds?
DAO: “They should be allowed to re-use some of their old material, but new material should be a focal point, such as things they’ve learned or changes they’ve made since.”
CWG Thinking:
For Projects > 10%: We keep their Jup Research post and Discord Forum post as is. They will get an AMA but the recommended focus would be changes and updates.For Projects < 10%: They start completely fresh. They make a new forum post, get a new discord forum, and give a fresh AMA - again with a suggestion to bring up changes.
Again, for the 3 projects who did not win in round 1, we would grandfather them into this for this round and allow them to reuse the forum posts.
3. What aspects did the DAO feel could be improved?
DAO: “What if we use Blind Voting, because people might flock to the winner”
We ideally would like 3 LFG votes under our belt first before making significant changes to the voting dynamic. We believe it is mission critical to the longevity of the platform to observe how things pan out organically and collect that raw data.
If over time we feel that it has a negative and substantial impact on the process, we could look into some potential mechanisms.
This also might be a secondary effect of being only able to choose 1 candidate
“Can we get email updates when the vote opens?”
We will actively explore the need for additional notification systems by engaging with the DAO and monitoring the participation rates of subsequent votes.
Based on the results of the first DAO vote(which had significant participation), this may not be an immediate issue.
“What is the CWG’s thoughts about incentives?”
We again don’t want to be overly heavy handed for the initial 3 votes. We want to collect data on how things organically pan out. Also there are a few things already baked in worth considering:
- The project offering the most prominent incentive so far did not win
- The design of LFG, including the lockup, disarms the immediate appeal of incentives and short term thinking
- The greatest incentive is the project you think will do best in the long-term. People would prefer 1% of a 1 billion mcap project, than 20% of a 100k mcap project.
“After voting, can the fact that we voted be made more prominent?”
We will implement this
“Can we get a link to the governance platform on the main site?”
We will also implement this
Feel free to discuss these positions below. We will also bring them up at tomorrow’s Uplink call.
17 Likes
I feels its essential to keep simple.
- Mask votes
- Top 2 win (of 6)
- 3rd (if 4+ candidates) and 4th (if 6 candidates) automatically included in next vote
- All others go back to forum to restart
- 3 non-top 2 votes also returns to forum
6 Likes
Consider weighted voting like in many DAO’s like stargate, snapshot etc. where you allocate percentage of voting power over any nymber of projects you like. This will solve multiple issues:
- No splitting wallets into sybils, wether you like it or not it is and will be happening in the future, as projects will try to bribe voters in many different ways.
- We will get a more accurate representation of number of unique voters this way, current number of unique walets voted does not represent accurately number of people voted at all and we all know that. Let’s not lie to ourselves.
- It will introduce totally different dynamics in votes distribution, which in turn will change the outcome of steps listed above in your post regarding what to do with projects that did not win and their vote treshholds.
- More Accurate Representation of Community Sentiment: Weighted voting can provide a finer granularity in expressing preferences. Voters can distribute their voting power across multiple projects according to their conviction, offering a clearer picture of community priorities.
5.Reduction in Bribery and Manipulation: Since voting power is distributed more evenly among the candidates it is not a simple quastion if current walltet voted for it or not, weight votes have to be taken into consideration hence it is not as straightforward approach to bribe a user. I might want to give projext x 5% of my votes for small allocation of their tokens as a bribe instead having to vote 100% or split my stake into sybil wallets for achieving the same purpose.
We could expand this discussion in a separate thread if needed, but it is obvious that weight based voting is allowing for a much more fintuned and true outcome of voting results, negating some current issues we already have with single voting, vote change etc
Visibility and Activity Concerns : Transitioning to weighted voting might indeed reveal lower active participation if measured by unique individuals rather than wallet counts. While this could provide a more honest picture of engagement, it may also affect the perceived vitality of the DAO.
6 Likes
This would be nice as a standard, it was hard tracking all of the most important information for each candidate & filtering through all of the noise
2 Likes
% threshold is smart and projects can push up their percentage via offering more free tokens to LFG voters. This long term should incentivise more projects to offer tokens to voters as they want a higher %, which is a nice bonus for us stakers as we get a larger share of projects.
2 Likes
Great breakdown on the feedback @Slorg as usual!
2 Likes
I think it would be best to take the 2nd and 3rd most voted (insert round) to automaticallyne bumped into the net roundand thee lowest to be put back into the forum along with our new applications and forum work. With the option for all secondary candidates to provide updates based upon user requests or potental fixes made in the last weeks by the dev team.
2 Likes
I have three questions in my mind to ensure fairness and inclusivity in future selections?
1-How can we prevent biases in candidate selection based on criteria like community sentiment and vision?
2-Are we at risk of overlooking groundbreaking projects that don’t fit neatly into predetermined metrics?
3-How do we balance diversity in projects with the practical need to select a manageable number of candidates?
For refining the LFG process, let’s prioritize both efficiency and inclusivity, ensuring every promising project has a fair chance to thrive.
1 Like
An automatic disqualification should concern an lfg candidate who promises more tokens in exchange for the vote at any time during the campaign phase and right up to the end of the election. In addition, the progression of votes during the election should remain invisible and only appear at the end of the ballot, so as not to distort voting intentions.
1 Like
I don’t think it should be this easy. Say for instance the final vote percentages breakdown as follows:
1st Place: 53%
2nd Place: 40%
3rd Place: 3%
4th Place: 2%
5th Place: 1%
6th Place: 1%
Should 3rd and 4th place automatically be included in the subsequent round? Feels like there should be a vote threshold to be met first. CWG has mentioned 10% but I feel that’s too low. Maybe 20% should be the number? Unless they’re worried that too many projects will get sent back to the starting line. Probably easier to find 2 or 3 new projects for the subsequent round rather than 4 or 5.
4 Likes
i definitely agree with you and think that there should be some minimum number of votes to move on for exactly the type of example you gave that teams who got less than 5% of the vote shouldn’t be automatically rewarded by moving to the next round. I think the 20% threshold may be too high though because with open voting where later voters can see who is “winning” before they vote tend to lead to power law outcomes where the top one or two teams take the vast majority of the percentage voting because those newer voters simply vote for one of the top 2 teams to avoid the perceived risk of having their vote be worthless. So my guess is that if you’re not in the top 2, you’ll have a very hard time overcoming a 30% threshold. I’m more in favor of the 10% minimum.
1 Like
Well, I also hope at some point they keep the vote tally hidden so that people are forced to think for themselves and vote for the projects they value rather than the potential “winners”.
I still think 10% is too low. Maybe split the difference at 15%? You should really be able to demonstrate that you’ve captured people’s attention and in my mind 10% doesn’t cut it.
I can very easily see a scenario where the top two projects split 60% of the vote (say 31/29) with the remaining four getting 10% each. Now should all 4 automatically be included in the next round when they clearly have very little support?
4 Likes