Well said @BlueZenith
Many silent JUP holders share your sentiments.
And they enjoy JUP DAO governance, watching Planetary Calls, etc.
It’s what keeps them engaged with Jupiter.
I’ve never actually heard a complaint from anyone saying there are too many votes.
The complaints mostly come from the eternally downward trend in ASR yield due to fixed rewards.
I believe Jup Mobile have been working with the Dialect team to implement their alerts system in the wallet.
You people need to stop pretending.
Doesn’t really matter what system we’ve got, if all we vote on is useless stuff, that can easily done by approving a budget to a marketing team and be done with it.
The sad reality is, we’ve got a charade calling it a “Governance”.
There is zero alignment between team , community and users.
I think Option 1 (Representative System) is a strong step forward — and likely the best fit for a DAO of this size and ambition. Speed, agility, and less voter fatigue are real needs, especially with the growing number of proposals we’re seeing.
The idea of democratically elected Representatives who can help move smaller proposals forward is appealing. It opens space for community leaders to emerge and lets everyday stakers stay involved without feeling overwhelmed. The ability to re-delegate vote-by-vote is a key feature — it prevents centralization and preserves individual control when needed.
That said, I do see a few nuances and potential trade-offs to highlight:
Some users may not actively manage their delegation. This could lead to poor vote quality over time.
While 301 is a fair number, we should keep an eye on whether it’s large enough to represent the diversity of the community, especially as JUP grows and decentralizes further.
A hybrid approach might be worth exploring (e.g. capped vote weight, or tiers).
If too many proposals get routed through reps, it could slowly disconnect broader DAO members from the governance process altogether. We need a good balance between agility and inclusion.
Still, overall — I support Option 1. It’s the most scalable path forward, as long as we continue to refine delegation UX, encourage transparency, and remain flexible in adjusting the rep count or thresholds based on real outcomes.
Looking forward to seeing this evolve and happy to participate in the testing phase if it rolls out. Great work by the team as always 
Love the discussion and love the ambition to try something new and refrain from being stagnant. I think Option 1 is a great idea and a way to clear the backlogs and ensuring there aren’t more. Plus it helps keep people active especially if they are looking to attract more stake. Option 2 requires the same amount of thought as we currently have, so probably the same amount of time. I would vote for option 1!
That’s great I really like it
Thanks a lot #kash
nice idea @DanielBR11
there’s definitely a need to have niche groups that serve the ever-increasing diverse community we have here
On different occasions I have stated that it is necessary, at least in my opinion, to promote some facilitation or dissemination group in Spanish, in order to understand and disseminate the real tasks with which greater value could be given to the DAO and the Jupiverse, from the creation of functional organizations in the real world, such as a foundation, or the implementation of entertainment elements, such as a Jupiverse in Sandbox, or other utilities that are initially practical for the consolidation or scalability of Jupiverse, and then for the autonomist functions of the DAO, if it is finally going to be a goal of the community to become independent of the team’s products.
It doesn’t even need to be that complex tbh.
Just look at McDonalds for instance: you can find a McDonalds in so many different countries but their menus are adapted to serve local tastes. There are a few staple options on the menu that is signature to the brand, but depending on the country you’ll find all sorts of unexpected options. These JUP groups you’re suggesting should offer the same kind of variety.
But we’re going off topic here for this discussion.
Do you have a proposal here or somewhere where you mentioned this previously?
I’ve only mentioned it in isolated comments, and last year I was starting to put together a proposal, but personal mistrust slowed my process. Then I had to dedicate myself to caring for a relative who ended up passing away, and I distanced myself quite a bit from the DAO and left the market. I work a lot with communities in real life and I also belong to a foundation, which is why I was motivated to also join this DAO with 100% of JUP at stake. For me, JUP really is home. And now that I’m back, I intend to break through my own insecurities so I can contribute work and value to this space, trying to also generate an impact in the real world and thus consolidate strong foundations for the Jpiverse and the business projections it entails. As well as in the DAO, I think the idea of gradually generating autonomy seems fantastic due to the disruptive challenge it entails. Since I don’t have a team or close friends interested in participating in the DAO, I think I’ll start by submitting a proposal and slowly begin to build a trusted team or friendship group. Honestly, I’m in a personal phase of rebirth that would allow me to dedicate all my time and effort to the DAO.
Good work for dedication put to this proposal, I support Option 1: Representative System. It accelerates decision-making, reduces voter fatigue, and empowers engaged community leaders. Set 301 Representatives and a $500k threshold to balance efficiency and inclusivity. Stakers can still actively participate by switching delegates. This system fosters agility, rewards active governance, and aligns with J4J ethos, while ensuring major decisions remain with the full DAO.
I need that Good Representative, that will represent my constituency.
Proposals are a total waste of time.
The only proposals that should be published here on the forum are ones whose details have already been agreed to by CoC heads/leaders.
Official DAO proposals have a 100% approval rate while community-led proposals have a 0% approval rate.
Do what you wish with that information.
I support Option 1
It offers a practical balance between efficiency and decentralization. As someone working closely with a regional community, I see this model making governance more accessible without overwhelming voters.
Excited to see this move forward!
responding within your response for ease/clarity!
always great to meet a crypto solider, but i don’t think the same is true of the vast majority of our stakers, and want to make sure they still are able to participate! we are indeed getting the vote notifications out soon as wel
delegation wouldn’t be taking away your right to voice your opinion - in Option 1, you could still comment/ask questions/give feedback as always, and change your delegation within a vote if you wanted to be very actively involved. you’d have effectively the same input as you have now, except that it wouldn’t be coming from your wallet directly on a limited subset of votes.
remember, in all cases, there would still also be full DAO votes!
appreciate you sharing your opinion, and your open-mindedness to go with what the community is looking for!
something tells me you’d end up as a Rep as well! thanks buddy
always room for improvement on the faciliation of proposals - i think Jup and Juice, Uplink, and some of the other working groups do a good job of this now though!
but yes agree with your point that if we go with Option 2, we’d need to start doing multiple votes at the same time (e.g. 2-3 proposals at once) just to keep making positive momentum.
agreed all of those things you mention are of value, not sure how to best compensate them, but would love to see ideas in a separate thread! here’s my honest opinion though: i think that the full DAO would vote against any additional expendiutres here, even if its on the order of e.g. $50k/year. I do think a smaller set of more engaged people (Representaives) might pass that vote since they’d see the value. that’s actually a small part of the reaosn i like Option 1 - if we focus voting among those who are highly engaged, they are better positioned to see what brings benefit than the e.g. 400k largest staker who staked once and then just votes against any budget spend at all.
as always, appreciate your thoughtfulness WTP!
Yeah the vote splitting could be an issue, agreed. I think there are some natural barriers to it (e.g. splitting your stake would a) require you unstaking for 30 days, then b) manually fixing up 20 wallets, and then c) having to click through 20 different wallets on every single vote) which would dissuade at least some point from doing it. but you are right that it exists as a potential vector. Perhaps the solution would be to increase the number of Representatives in that case - e.g. if we move to 1001, you’d have to split across so many wallets that it just wouldn’t be worth it, potenitally.
See above
That’s a good shout! I like that as well actually. Though if it was capped in the way you suggest, the DAO treasury could never be depleted (Zeno’s Paradox)
