One of the main criticisms of the voting process for the Core Working Group Budget Proposal was that there wasn’t a sufficient synopsis on the voting page and that many people would not make the effort to click through to the post on the Jupiter Research forum to read it in full and cast a fully informed vote.
In order to improve this aspect of the voting process, I would like to suggest the following options:
OPTION 1
Currently, voting on a proposal requires visiting two web pages. The first is vote.jup.ag where the prospective voter will log in with their wallet and scroll down to the bottom to select the active proposal. They are then directed to the second page which has a very short description of the proposal at the top left.
I suggest that this second page be a full one-pager with text, visuals and design elements that provide a comprehensive overview in an easily digestible format. It would be less comprehensive than, but would include a link to, the full proposal on the Jupiter Research forum.
At the bottom of this page would be two radio buttons with choices like:
I have read and fully understand the current proposal. I am ready to vote.
I do not understand this proposal. Please direct me to the forum post to do research/ask questions.
Once they have made their selection, they would be prompted with a dialog box to “CONTINUE”
If they selected the “ready to vote” option, they would be directed to a third page to cast their vote.
If they are not ready to vote, they would be directed to the forum post.
OPTION 2
Similar to Option 1 but instead of being directed to the second page after clicking on the active proposal, they would be prompted with a “Terms of Service” popup that would explain the proposal. Something like this:
This adds too much friction to the voting process, particularly if you’re managing multiple wallets (and also factoring in currently existing network congestion, etc.).
I do, however, support putting more descriptive text on the landing page where votes are cast (for example, the recent CWG vote was VERY sparse on details on the actual vote landing page and many voters clearly did not click through to the longer form post with information / details).
I think a pop-up is a great idea. Could make it even easier to digest with a pop up of a poster similar to below.
Some enforced requirements for a proposal creator could be:
Must create a poster summarising your proposal.
Must add sections that must be included in all posters.
Add limitation on words for each section.
Example sections and word count for 2.
Abstract (~100 words): Summarize the proposal’s aim to empower the Jupiter community and outline the vision for a decentralised financial ecosystem.
Core Initiatives (~100 words): Describe background of the proposal and the problem being solved and outline key focus areas and solutions.
Achievements and Future Plans of members. Keep information related to the proposal (~200 words): Introduce the team, highlighting their expertise and contributions to the JUP and the proposal. Highlight accomplishments and outline future objectives, focusing on community and ecosystem development.
Funding and Incentive Alignment (~100 words): Detail the funding proposal, emphasising the operational budget, JUP token allocation, and vesting structure - if relevant.
