A Post-Mortem Retrospective of the first WG Vote


Why do a post-mortem of a vote that passed?

There is plenty of room for improvement. There were many valuable lessons and datapoints provided in past week for the CWG. After the vote closed on Monday, we spent the following 5 hours on calls with Jupiter community members who had eschewed both positive and critical feedback towards the process.

Here are our key takeaways from the 4 hour town hall during the vote, on twitter, as well as conversations with intelligent and measured key opinion leaders who put meaningful time into their critiques.

What went right:

  • We collected immensely valuable feedback, as well as attained a massive influx of talented, intelligent and passionate members to the DAO.
  • Jupiter received a massive amount of attention and inspired multiple days of conversation around DAO dynamics.
  • We stress tested the system and the CWG members themselves, and now have several means to make improvements to various systems based on real world feedback rather than presupposed assumptions.
  • We had a very intimate, multi-day back and forth with the community which culminated in a 4 hour Twitter Spaces where everyone was given the chance to speak and be listened to.

What could have gone better & how to improve


Accountability Measures for working groups are something we are tasked with developing; with the cliff serving as the first and most powerful.

The conditions that the DAO could hold a working group accountable could have been communicated much better, and some members felt like they were in some sort of limbo with no recourse possible in the event that the CWG failed to deliver.

  • In 6 months, to ensure full community buy-in and to serve as a stopgap while we develop more measures, Meow has vowed to hold an accountability vote.

  • In the meantime, we will construct a formalized and explicit system for WG’s to be held accountable without burdening them in DAO process β€” so that the DAO can scale.


The participation rate across Jupiter’s interfaces with the community (Uplink calls, town halls, discord, twitter, the forum) was not representative of every group in the entire holderbase of 250,000 and ended up missing input and perspective from people who do not regularly attend these things.

We have 3 solutions for dealing with this:

  1. Increasing the accessibility of information through the co-creation of Jup.eco, a website which hosts every piece of DAO relevant information, built in collaboration with multiple cadets.
  2. For major votes, the addition of a Twitter Spaces to the Discord Townhall and Zoom Uplink Calls.
  3. Looking into branching comms into telegram.


Proposal Etiquette was missing some items including the CWG’s time commitment, effective budget allocation explanations, and in-depth breakdown of their task scope. While it did cover high level goals, it could have been much more granular.

  • In terms of task scope, as an individual answer: Quarterly reports will be implemented as a standard for all Working Groups which detail out what they’ve achieved in the prior quarter.

  • In terms of proposals going forward, we posit the creation of a β€˜proposal review board’ made up of catdets to serve as a resource for people who are creating a proposal to give comprehensive and targeted feedback. This could be as simple as creating templates or standards to create consistency across proposals, and to also serve as a sounding board.


  1. Formalizing more accountability measures as per our task scope, with a 6 month accountability vote β€˜stop-gap’ in the meantime
  2. Increasing information accessibility, voting UX, and propagation.
  3. Creating more proposal resources for all work groups.

Thank you to all the Catdets who voted and gave valuable feedback on the very first JWG DAO vote. Let us know what you think!

Additionally, we will have more concrete items to address at the Working Group Townhall which we host after each LFG cycle.

There, we will have answers to questions such as β€˜When will the first quarterly report come out’, and an announcement about an update to the vesting period based on community feedback.

Update on vesting:


Good synopsis. A couple of things come to mind after reading:

  • Is feasible to schedule future DAO votes in advance and make a full calendar available for all to see? It doesn’t have to be set in stone. It can be subject to change. It would also help maybe avoid some major holidays.

  • It’s clear that people become more involved when the vote goes live. Is it possible to extend the voting period from 3 to 4 or even 5 days for proposals? LFG Launchpad votes are fine at 3 days.

  • Looking back, I don’t believe there was a tweet from the Jupiter account when either the proposal or the vote went live. Should there be a separate DAO account on X? (Meaningless to me as I don’t use X but most people do. They don’t call it Crypto Twitter for nothing.)

  • Parameters for the 6-month accountability vote should be set ASAP so as to avoid that same feeling of limbo.

  • Due date for the first CWG quarterly report?

  • The β€˜Proposal Review Board’ is a great idea. A proposal template also sounds like it has promise.

And finally, this was posted ~5 hours ago but still not mentioned in Discord? I would think you’d like to let folks know it’s here. Sound the alarm!


I think some of your questions very adequately outline one of the issues we mentioned because you are someone I would consider to be quite active, but you weren’t aware that this was mentioned multiple times in the week prior or that a tweet went out from the main account when it was live:

Some commentary and questions:

  1. How much leadup is required? Is this required for every vote type? I think a community calandar would be fantastic, i really like that

  2. More days are possible yes. 3 was used because that was the standard of the prior votes. Should certain vote types be held longer?

  3. The answer to some of these such as the quarterly report date I think we will talk about at the next town hall which we host in between LFG cycles


I’m most active on Discord and not at all on X. I know there was lead up in Discord because I was anticipating the draft and even replied to it the same day. I should have phrased it better and asked if a tweet had been sent from the main account. Not having an X account, I was unable to go back and look before posting here.

I was attempting speak from the possible perspective of others who do use X. That tweet is from the 29th when the vote went live. Was anything sent out on or prior to the 26th when the first draft of the proposal was posted here?

Definitely more lead up for budget votes/financial initiatives but exactly how much, I’m not sure. When you think about it, there are weeks of lead up for the LFG because of the project intros and AMAs. As for voting, any measure that requires spending money from the DAO treasury should be longer than 3 days, IMO.

I’m actually a little worried when it comes to the 6 month accountability vote. I fear that if the way of measuring the CWGs progress is too subjective then many will have a hard time assessing its performance accurately and will do so emotionally instead.

Looking forward to the next town hall.

1 Like

Thank you for your detailed post.

I think one of the very important issues that the community had that you failed to mention was the amount of JUP allocation and the short vesting period that you proposed.

Many people found these terms unreasonable. And it was the main discussion point in Discord and Twitter.

During our call with Slorg and Kemosabe, I mentioned that 2 years vesting period is too short, and after you can claim all your JUP, you would have little to no reason to work for JUP DAO since you will be a millionaire with JUP at current prices.

I also mentioned, It would be such a shame to lose talents like you who will bring lots of benefits to DAO hence why I proposed 4-5 years of vesting would be more beneficial for the DAO and the JUP community.

You both recognized this issue and told me that you had a plan to address the vesting period issue.

So I’m a bit surprised that these issues are not mentioned here.

My questions:

  1. Why did you not mention the community feedback about the amount and vesting period here?

  2. How do you plan to address the vesting issue with a new proposal?

  3. What is the estimated time to take action in this regard?

Thanks for your time.




Yep, and we still fully intend to do that

We will have several concrete items to discuss at the Working Group Townhall we host in between LFG sessions

One of which will be this, others will be answers to questions like β€œwhen will the first quarterly report come out”.

Just to be explicit: We will be announcing a vesting increase at that townhall.