While I understand the need to speed up decision making, I also still feel that Option 2 is more appealing because it allows interested voters to have a more direct way to participate.
It’s definitely a difficult choice between the two.
1 Like
In thinking on it more, I’m curious how Option 1 will be any faster.
Presumably, you will still have to announce proposals and spend time getting feedback from the community before JUP stakers can decide how they want to vote so that they can then choose a delegate who will vote on their behalf. Or do you intend not to release proposal details to the general public and have measures enacted behind closed doors?
Seems to me like delegation is just an added layer of complexity that could slow things down unless you start cutting out the community.
Keeping things as simple as possible is always better.
No, I think we’ll likely drop proposals faster like I eluded to earlier, but it will also be significantly easier to inform 301 people about a proposal rather than 400,000, so both communication and event schedules will be simplified. There is a lot that we do prior to and during a vote just to enable people with chances to inform themselves about a vote, and when the voterbase for smaller proposals is 300 something people compared to 400,000, that job is much easier. There’s a reason pretty much all larger DAOs that have been around for a while utilizes a version of what we have chosen to call representatives.
The only small budget-impact votes i can think of are “Trial Work Group” Proposal and some votes which may be a bit bigger than “Grantee” proposals (something which is internally voted upon by the CoCs). End of the day, bigger proposal votes will still go on for full DAO voting resulting into the same budget fud we see happening recently. Also, mandatory representatives will cause many people who want to be actively present in discussion and proceedings to forcibly delegate their staked JUP to one of the 301 representatives or else they miss out of ASR, this I see as a lose-lose for someone who wants to be an active part of the DAO but doesn’t have enough delegated vote power.
The number of stakers vary in our DAO on a daily basis. Finding the “right” number won’t be an easy thing in my honest opinion.
One major feedback I want to give would be for Option 2 (which I personally favor):
- Even if option 2 wins, it’s made crystal clear that the pace at which votes are happening will be increased.
How this helps is, it allows us to push more and more votes as needed. If people have issues with this, they can delegate it to someone who’s actively taking part. This helps everyone to act as a representative and removes the need of question- “What should be the appropriate number of Delegate Representatives” allowing the numbers to grow organically along with the community. This also allows anyone who wants to be an active part of DAO proceedings to remain a part of the system without being served an ultimatum of either delegating their stake or to let go of their ASR as not delegating their stake won’t allow people to take part in voting.
One thing which is clear is that no matter what happens, the rate at which votes are happening has to go up regardless of which option wins, and if that’s the case, then Option 2 is the best way to make that happen.
Thank you for reading my suggestions and I hope it can be pushed forward in the discussions and taken into consideration.
Edit: Another concern that I hold when it comes to Option 1 is that it would unintentionally but inevitably bring out a kind of PvP mentality as to who’s more popular and can convince people to delegate their power to them and not someone else instead, so on and so forth
1 Like
Seems like you do plan to cut out the general public.
If you are only informing 301 people about the proposal, how will the general public know which delegate they want to choose? I need to know how a delegate will vote on a particular proposal before I select them and in order to do that I need to know the details of the proposal first.
There’s also a reason why pretty much all other DAOs fail. I thought the idea was for this to be an experiment in something different.
Option 3. Keep it as it as and solve by approaching it another way. How many people does it take to change a lightbulb? Meaningful votes. e.g. slash and burn time waster votes such as mobile phone images. Could have instead just given mobile phone users option to choose themselves in a mini poll or just flick through images they liked to use on their phone. Didn’t need a DAO vote. Spacing of votes, even more than one per week, if necessary. Don’t give Hobsons Choice.
2 Likes
No, I’m merely saying that informing 400,000 people that a vote is about to happen takes a lot more time than informing 301. Those who want to make up their own minds can still read the proposals as usual and delegate to a representative that has either signaled which way they will vote or one that has already voted in the direction you want. Everything will be public and accessible, just like it is now.
I don’t think representative systems is why DAOs fail. By that same logic we could say that all DAOs that haven’t failed (ex; MakerDAO) utilize representatives. At the end of the day I think a representative system is the best option to improve decisionmaking in the DAO, and I wouldn’t want to give up on that because its not different enough from what DAOs have tried in the past.
1 Like
Option 1 (representatives) allows more flexibility and agility, votes are very exhausting at times and from working in this system for a while. Not everything should go to a full vote.
Utilizing this system would allow us to 10x efficiency and streamline impact.
If there is another way to allow more flexibility for the vote process and allowing the DAO to act more quickly than the current process, I am all ears.
But the reality is, this is a large problem that needs solving and option 1 solves this problem effectively.
2 Likes
We need a system that is agile, we need a system that is fast. The web3 space is evolving soooo fast. Having 10-12 votes a year isnt realistic if we want to stay competitve and want to reach higher highs for the DAO.
I am 100% for Option 1.
A representative system helps the DAO to take decisions fast without involving 400.000 wallets. 301 people are by far enough. The DAO is becoming bigger and bigger and has more and more Trials WGs / Full WGs. Many more decisions have to be made on a smaller scale. Some strategic and some not.
I understand that 350k might be a lot, maybe go for option 1 but reduce this number? maybe to 150-200k?
In the end if smaller votes (for representatives) are made this could be broken down to phases.
This would also help people who have smaller plans (1-2 members for a WG) to go “faster” down the road and also experiment in the DAO. Dont forget, everything is an experiment.
A Representative system will also activate community members to be more engaged and become politicians of the DAO.
TLDR; i see the Option 1 as a chance for the DAO to evolve and become more flexible and agile.
Its a chance to find out if we want this flexibility or not.
Cheers
1 Like
Option one is far better in my opinion - the Opt-in Delegation model is cool but NOT that useful for any reason other than making voters lives a bit easier.
The Representative option will make the DAO more capital efficient, allowing it to be way more agile. The current voting system puts a ton of weight on the members of the DAO and creates a lot of discontent. People want to focus less on small budget expenditures and more on the big picture decisions.
There are many things I’ve wanted to do, as a WG members, where I thought they could probably help out the DAO but the process of sending something to a full vote would be untenable, overly difficult, and we wouldn’t have the time as the end of the day. I’m optimistic that delegates might allow a bit more creativity.
1 Like
Thats really interesting proposal. Will definitely opt for Delegation, wont be missing any vote
This has already happened directionally btw
For example, the latest mobile bg vote was actually a twitter poll instead.
I think ppl will want option 2, but I don’t really see how that will help with the issue. For this reason, I like option 1, but I wish there were a way to make sure the top 301 delegated wallets included a good mixture of different types of voters, e.g., not all yes men. Great resolution Kash.
imo option 1 is great for small stakers, it lets them delegate their votes to trusted members so they don’t have to vote on every small decision, they can still change their representative for specific votes if they want. the “1 representative = 1 vote” rule stops big stakers from taking over giving small stakers a fair say also rewards depend on active representatives so small stakers benefit without much effort as well it makes DAO faster which helps everyone.
Fixe needed :
-
Increase the budget limit to >500$K so big decisions go to all stakers
-
Keeping the 301 representatives but make sure they’re diverse with clear info on their past votes and ideas
-
Creating an easy to use website for delegating so small stakers can pick representatives without stress
Pretty sure these votes aren’t included in ASR
Great post as always @Kash Took time to read over and over lol, I think delegation seems like the way.
After reading both systems, I lean towards Option 2: Opt-In Delegation.
Why? Because it keeps the spirit of decentralization fully alive — everyone still has a voice and a vote unless they personally choose to delegate it.
It also respects the flexibility we need in Web4: some of us want to vote on everything, others want to step back — and that’s perfectly fine.
Delegation solves the fatigue problem without introducing new layers of governance. No rep classes, no thresholds, just voluntary trust.
Plus, with ASR still rewarded for voting (or delegating to an active wallet), it keeps the incentives aligned.
Let’s keep it simple and human-first. Web4 should feel empowering, not institutional.
1 Like
Do you know if this proposal is a means to address a specific technical issue regarding the ~400K wallets versus the proposed 301?
Why is the number of wallets relevant here?
There should be a third option: No change.
If we’re not going to include true abstain options such as this then the DAO leadership should just make all the decisions themselves and do away with ASR.
If voters don’t vote, are they really voters?