In the dynamic landscape of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), the design of a robust and fair voting system is pivotal to ensuring effective decision-making. Particularly, token-holding DAOs face the challenge of striking a balance between inclusivity and preventing undue influence by a few powerful entities. This proposal delves into the intricacies of various voting systems, dissecting their pros and cons, and proposes a nuanced approach tailored for the unique needs of Jupiter.
If EVERY token holders were able to vote ( > 1 tokens) and had EQAUL weighting:
More voters/engagement (good for larger communities)
People would distribution their tokens across thousands of wallets in order to win the polls in their favor.
IF EVERY token holders were able to vote ( > 1 tokens) and had DIFFERENT weighting:
Same amount of voters/engagement (good for larger communities)
There would be less of a reason to bot votes (Since whales have more weighting)
IF SOME token holders were able to vote ( > 175 tokens) and had EQAUL weighting:
Voters would have a financial incentive to vote appropriately
Botting votes would be more expensive and therefore less botting would occur
Less voters in total (This isnât a bad thing because majority of the voters would have a financial incentive to grow Jupiter)
IF SOME token holders were able to vote ( > 175 tokens) and had DIFFERENT weighting:
Voters would have a financial incentive to vote appropriately
Botting votes would be more expensive and therefore less botting would occur
I personally donât like the approach of âdifferentâ weighting, anyone who has more than 175 tokens would most likely want the best for the DAO. Different weighting can skew the polls in favor of the whales BUT not the majority of the voters.
Which one is best for Social Media Engagement: 1st and 2nd Which one is optimal for the future growth of Jupiter: 3rd
I personally like the 3rd option
Why did i choose 175 tokens? Itâs currently equivalent to $100 USD, and therefore it will create a financial incentive for voters to vote appropriately.
Iâve talked to a few community members in the Jupiter discord server, and theyâve provided significant insights into more variables to consider; (Locking tokens for more voting power, tier based weighting system)
Locking Tokens:
Create a less volatile token price overall and a financial incentive for voters to vote in the best interest of Jupiter.
Tier Based Weighting System:
The more tokens you hold, the more voting power you have. However in hindsight, this can create a skewed voting system whereby whales determine the outcome of Jupiter; not the community. We donât want this to happen.
I believe implementing a tier based weighting system with a MAX voting power of 10 (Holding more than $1M in $JUP) would be the most beneficial for the DAO.
NOTE: I most likely havenât considered every possibility and there are a lot of different aspects to consider. If you have ideas about how this Voting System would work, message me on discord. My tag is Riking_.
Isnât this really similar to what Marinade DAO used to do with their chef NFTs?
Either way, I agree on the sense that âThe more one is invested into the DAO, the more weight one should haveâ. But also, there should be control (staking and timeouts) to avoid voting for something that rewards dumping vote power.
Would it be more efficient to base the Tier threshold on JUP tokens held, rather than their USD value?
This approach imo would stabilise the Tier someone has achieved. USD may cause the Tier to change regularly as dollar value of JUP will inevitably fluctuate.
Very recently there were complaints that a huge company keep influencing the wealthiest DAOs decisions with their huge number of tokens. They frequently give grants to projects they had incubated/are involved with using a DAO that is NOT theirs. They also vote ânoâ when a competing product needs funding even though it is owned by a bonafide community member and a high number of wallets voted âyesâ.
Youâre an APE holder, so you should know exactly who & what I am referring to. What is the best way to prevent the DAO from making decisions that arenât good for it simply because the whales want it? Also should there be veto powers? What should be the conditions that govern it?.
This is a smart approach, but I have one question though. Using the base tier as an example, If a voter has more than a $100 but less than a $1000, say the voter holds $500 worth of JUP, does the voting power still stays at 1, or there will be an improvement?
I agree with you on a treshold of a minimum amount of Jupiter holdings.
I semi agree on more Jup more power. Problem is less people could outweigh many people. Not democratic anymore. I mean Whales imho have a big interest in the future od Jupiter.
I would throw in the round not only a minimum amount of Jupiter holding. I would also say that I would stake my Jupiter for 3 to 6 month for voting rights. Probably best with a cooldown on unstaking of 14 days or something.
Cosmos Hub uses a vote called "No With Veto; if 33.33% of the vote is âNo with Vetoâ the proposal fails and deposit is slashed.
This could be a good method to give the community more powerâŚI have no clue how to implement thisâŚIâm a drooling button clicker, but it seems this is so we canât get steamrolled into proposals that could hurt the communityâŚ
actually preferred a system where the longer you stake your token, the more weight you have. for example
3 month stake: .25 weight
6 month .5 weight
9 month .75 weight
1 year 1 weight
2 year 2 weight
etcâŚ
this will align holderâs voting habit to align with the DAO instead of abusing their voting for personal gain at the expense of the DAO.
I dislike making the voting power based on $JUP held because this means that if a token holder was holding their coins and sent them to a different wallet for security purposes, they will have less power than if they just kept it there. Some people want to use multiple wallets for their security and prevent loss of funds if one of the accounts gets hacked. So ultimately it seems voting power is definitely a tricky topic to solidify and execute for this project.
Tier based voting system or any other system not weighted pro-rata makes no sense. You clearly have no experience with boting anything. If something can be abused by bots - it will be abused. Day 1 there will be private scripts to maximize voting power. Day 7 there will be scripts for sale. Day 30 there will be web interfaces for doing exactly that.
I would strongly encourage to take conviction voting into account.
If somebody shows conviction to $JUP by staking/locking the tokens for a longer timeframe - this should increase the voting power significantly so lilâJimmy can throw a roaring middlefinger to the
An interesting proposal and some very interesting and helpful replies to this thread. Love or loathe them (whales) they form an important part of successful projects, providing liquidity to projects. However, we are all aware of how they love power and are not all good actors. I much prefer the amount of Jup held to translate to tiers regarding rewards, e.g. airdrops of new tokens and for whales to have no significant additional voting power. IF some sort of tier system was to be added for voting, it should be extremely minimal e.g. x2 to x3 (so voting power of 2 or 3 people, with no further boosters re: votes, irrespective of the amount of Jup). To balance this a bit, long-term, staked smaller votes, can also achieve x2 (as a minimum) e.g. if they stake their Jup for 12 months. In a nutshell, voting power needs to be as close as possible to one person, one vote. There is the issue of multiple accounts being used, but as the multiplier is tiny (x2 or x3), theyâd need to create thousands or tens of thousands of accounts to achieve any impact. I also like the earlier suggestion of one of loothore907 of a veto system as a safety net.
roaring middlefinger to the 
