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.
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.
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.
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🙌🏿
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.
Balancing voting power in DAOs is essential to uphold their decentralized ethos and ensure equitable decision-making. A key strategy is the implementation of quadratic voting, which reduces the disproportionate influence of large token holders by making additional votes increasingly costly. This allows smaller stakeholders to have a more meaningful impact on proposals, fostering inclusivity. Another approach is delegated voting, where participants can assign their voting power to trusted representatives who align with their interests, ensuring diverse viewpoints are represented without being overshadowed by whales.
To further balance power, DAOs can adopt weighted voting mechanisms, where voting power considers factors beyond token holdings, such as participation in governance, project contributions, or community tenure. Additionally, implementing time-locked staking can reward long-term commitment over short-term holdings, aligning incentives with the DAO’s sustainability.
Governance caps can also be a practical measure, limiting a single entity’s maximum voting power. This prevents the concentration of influence and ensures broader community involvement. Transparency is another cornerstone—by making governance decisions and vote outcomes fully visible, stakeholders can hold influential participants accountable.
Addressing power imbalances requires a mix of structural changes and cultural shifts. Building a governance model that emphasizes collaboration, fairness, and shared responsibility ensures the DAO remains resilient and attractive to a diverse, active membership base. By aligning incentives and encouraging participation across all stakeholders, DAOs can better fulfill their promise of decentralized, equitable governance.
That reminds me of GitHub, idk if anyone else has direct experience with that to clarify. I certainly think the existing $JUP consensus model is worth looking at if they truly do aim to separate themselves from how banks work. Not the biggest stake but the most active I have been in a dao with respect to voting and reading other folks ideas. So far the process has been interesting to observe. I honestly thought criteria would have been released but like California we are still counting votes in some respects . I’m going to look and consider the models you put forth and look at other projects as well. I like the idea one cadet said about simply buying more jup if you want your vote to carry more weight.
Only thing about that is a high percentage of whales that were gifted 6 figures of jup for arguably less platform usage than even I had in 6 months (in my one trading wallet had something like 10,000 swaps + several decent mid ish sized perps trades + a bunch of smaller perps trades)
Lord have mercy half of that in HYPE would have been probably a 7 figure airdrop. But I digress, I’m going to wait until the criteria is released officially before really making decisions or sharing my own thoughts on how the voting part of the model should be updated or not.
-90 percent I can see in JUP sure. Mostly because of the overall supply. I know this simple math / fact escapes many. Like those who ask why W kept going down.
Simple math brother. It was always going to happen.
But what will cause this to happen in a compounded fashion would be a bear market + significantly less people TRADING PERPS ON JUP
Next few months will be an interesting case study of Jup. Jupuary. The burn, on the subject of the burn. I like a take I saw by an X user @rasmr, where he simply stated : burns are bearish.
Never really considered that until I thought about the tokens I had held in the past where a significant burn occurred.
All these tokens have SIGNIFICANTLY LESS SUPPLY THAN JUP ALSO.
Burn mechanism is interesting part of crypto I’m seeing more and more popular. This next 365 days in the space will be interesting to say the least.
Last thing I will say before coffee. I do believe that @Meow genuinely wants to grow this into something spectacular. The only ever two founder level guys I see or pay attention too are him and Kash. Just those two are an odd but complementary dynamic. In a space full of grifters and scammers. I do not get that vibe from atleast either of those two guys.
I feel this is important only because of my stance / position as watcher.
I have no bias and will probably talk shit before saying anything nice.
. I’m going to look and consider the models you put forth and look at other projects as well. I like the idea one cadet said about simply buying more jup if you want your vote to carry more weight.