Balancing Power in DAO Governance: Lessons from Majority vs. Minority Stakeholder Votes

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. You raise an important point about how personal incentives, like timing exits during a bull run, can influence voting outcomes and create imbalances in decision-making. It’s clear that aligning long-term interests with governance mechanisms is a challenge that needs careful attention.

Your suggestion to let the team decide this time is an interesting one. While decentralisation is a core principle, there are situations where a more centralised decision-making approach could help stabilise governance dynamics, especially during pivotal moments like this. Think that’s why the quorum required for normal votes to pass was agreed at 30% of the vote or so recently for less important votes like so the DAO can reach consensus smoothly without a lot of setbacks.

I also agree that addressing barriers to initiating proposals, like requiring a certain level of participation, could encourage broader engagement and ensure valuable ideas like yours get the consideration they deserve. A community vote on whether the team should take the reins this time could be a step toward addressing these challenges while still respecting the collective voice but I believe @meow and the team have outlined a clear strategy for addressing the Jupuary vote if it doesn’t pass this time. Their plan involves reviewing verified feedback from the first vote, gathering additional input from the DAO, using that feedback to refine the initial proposal, and then drafting a revised proposal for a second vote. I have confidence in the team and hope they can strike the right balance to ensure the next vote succeeds. This would help prevent the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the JUP token from persisting throughout the remainder of the bull market.

2 Likes

Once the bear market hits, the project is left with less whales. While the market keeps going down, most of the remaining community who are still holding will slowly disappear from web3. They either sell after months of rektness, or go hibernate. Once the bear market is full on and altcoins have dropped +90%, the whales will come back and buy a lot more JUP than they had previously (assuming the project fundamentals still look bullish).

This is pretty much the mechanism how you can become a whale over time in crypto without crazy risks.

Very easy on paper yet much harder in practice as you have to take the emotions out.

5 Likes

Am glad someone can finally talk about this but saying it in an intelligent way. It’s not my strength. Finally I would like to also give one last perspective.
Decentralised non inflationary finance is I believe what will fix this world we live in. Sure Jup token will have more supply after the airdrop but this was decided from the beginning and will soon have a fixed supply. Currently a large fiat whale could simply stake a lot of Jup tokens and have all the say. Yes the Jupiter universe is large within the crypto space and growing but we need the crypto space to evolve away from a centralised system as it was intended. We can hope.

2 Likes

Those who aren’t sure how to go about it or don’t know how the game is played, that’s your blueprint there to become the next big whale before this time in 2028🙌🏿

1 Like

I don’t think a single person in this forum or elsewhere has ever answered how the sanctity of the vote is maintained most especially when you can just choose any top holder of jup and see it’s the only thing in the wallet.

It is certainly a topic that should be discussed by the founders. Hearing a lot always about Sybil this and farmer that.

Never anything on how a 100k jup stake can’t be partitioned into 1000 wallets to sway a vote.

Don’t think doing this can sway a vote because the current voting mechanism is Linear; voting mechanism where the weight of each participant’s vote is directly proportional to the number of tokens they hold. Each token represents one vote, and the voting power increases linearly with the number of tokens owned. So if you partition 100k vote to 100k wallets for example, you still end up with 100k vote. It might cost you more instead trying to do this I suppose as it has no benefits.