Proposal: A More Inclusive Voting Power Structure Based on Commitment, Not Capital

Jupiter DAO
,
1

Hey everyone,

I wanted to bring up an idea I’ve been thinking about regarding the current staking and voting system in the Jupiter ecosystem. As it stands, voting power is directly proportional to the amount of JUP you have staked—1 JUP = 1 vote. That means if someone has 10,000 JUP staked, their vote weighs significantly more than someone with, say, 100 JUP. While I get the logic behind this, I think it opens the door to a kind of soft centralization, where larger holders end up dominating governance decisions, even if unintentionally.

So here’s the core of my proposal:

Introduce a commitment-based voting tier—anyone who has staked 100 JUP or more for 6 months or longer would receive the same voting power as someone who has staked 10,000 JUP, regardless of how much they actually hold (as long as they meet the minimum threshold).

At the same time, I propose that voting power be capped at 10,000 JUP, even for those who stake more. That way, the influence of big holders is still meaningful—but not overwhelming.

These numbers (100 JUP, 10,000 JUP, 6 months, etc.) are open for discussion—they’re just starting points. But the goal is to strike a better balance between capital-based influence and long-term commitment.

This model would:

Reward those who are genuinely committed to the ecosystem, regardless of how much they can afford to stake.
Make governance more accessible to people from different backgrounds.
Maintain decentralization by limiting the outsized influence of large stakers.
Still allow high-stake holders to earn rewards through the existing quarterly yield mechanism, without giving them disproportionate governance power.

To me, staking should be about support and alignment with the project, not just a means to gain voting dominance. If someone has stayed committed for half a year or more, they should have a real say, even if they’re not sitting on a huge pile of JUP.

Would love to hear your thoughts and ideas on this—especially around the thresholds and timeline. Let’s refine this together if it resonates with you.

Kind regards David.

2

I think it’s a great idea that people who are staking are being rewarded, and I definitely agree that those who are staking larger amounts of capital should continue to be rewarded more—as is currently the case. Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that part should change. Personally, I’ve been thinking about how we could keep supporting that going forward, especially since, from what I’ve read, the current reward system is only guaranteed through Q3 this year (though it seems likely it’ll continue beyond that, based on what the team has said). That said, I also think it’d be good for us to start coming up with ideas to further incentivise and support those who are committing significant capital long-term.

1 Like