Introducing the Voter Empowerment Working Group

jup logo

Introducing the Voter Empowerment Working Group (VEWG)

(Left: Wake Planetary Call 14, Link:, right: Sax on Planetary Call 15, Link: )

Why We Are Here

What We Do


Recent and ongoing discussions highlight the need to improve voting procedures. Key issues include; the accessibility of information regarding LFG token tokenomics, budget allocations, and misunderstandings about ASR rewards.

For example, a recent tweet by @0xSoju ( and countless other discussions across various platforms emphasize these concerns.

The current voting process has limitations that result in voters overlooking important details in proposals, which can lead to various issues ithese proposals are passed.

To ensure the longevity of the DAO, votes involving budget allocations should require voters to achieve a minimum level of understanding.

Some key examples of which are as follows:

  1. Accessibility considerations are not currently a part of the voting process. Some key accessibility issues are:
  • Reading and comprehension.
  • Time and effort required taken to conduct research in current format.
  • Understanding.
  • Disabilities.
  • Language barriers.
  1. Understanding of what the proposal means. Voters appear to vote without fully understanding the proposal.

  2. Understanding of the vote mechanics. For example; some voters assume that their voting choices influence ASR rewards or that they are unable to change a vote once it has been cast.

  3. Information delivery. Most of the information regarding proposals is presented using platforms that do not have large amounts of users, when compared to the voting platform itself. This void between information source and voter causes uninformed votes.

  4. Verification, there is currently no mechanism to confirm a vote has been understood before a vote is cast.

  5. Herd behaviour is a common phenomenon in web3. Herding behaviours appear to be present within votes and are amplified by the current voting system.

  6. Complexity of proposal. Technical language and concepts present a barrier that may lead to poor voter autonomy.


VEWG addresses these issues by providing information to voters in a highly accessible way. Whilst also fostering engagement among members regarding the voting process via live streams and other incentives outlined in this proposal and below.

Knowledge verification will also be facilitated via voting UI adjustments discussed later in this proposal (The questionnaire will take 10 to 45 seconds and require 3 to 6 mouse clicks, including changing answers, depending on level of understanding).

Watching the optional video will only add an additional 30 seconds if the user chooses to watch it.

VEWG solutions and their corresponding challenges are outlined below:

J.U.P Talk Structure Live Stream

Name of broadcast subject to change.

In addition UI changes, voter support structures and content.

We are hosting live stream, long-form content on Twitter Live (multi-streamed to other platforms).

The aim of this is to provide proposal groups (and other interested parties) a platform from which they are able to share their proposals and ideas, and receive feedback from a wider audience than is available here on Jupresearch/Discord.

J.U.P Talk Usecase

The core objective of this content to provide:

  • Long-form content for DAO proposals.
  • Audio-only content for DAO proposals.
  • A platform for DAO proposals.
  • Exposure to proposals.
  • Widespread understanding of proposals.
  • An enjoyable and easy to digest way to keep up to date with proposals.
  • Humanizing proposals and the hard working individuals behind them.
  • A fun and meaningful event for JUP and non-JUP communities to get involved.
  • A platform for community members of all kinds to share their story and ideas.
  • An informal stream will also be hosted to provide a more relaxed and degen experience.

Content from J.U.P Talk will used in various areas to support other WGs, this WG and other incentives.

These are recorded sessions, including host webcams and guest webcams where possible.

Informal Live Streams

Name to be confirmed, Ape Chat, Degen Hours, Degen Chat, JUP Jam

Informal live streams are frequent and combine working in public with degen discussions. Similar to those currently held in Discord by the proposal team (Wake and Sax).

These are typically unrecorded sessions, sometimes including webcams.

(J.U.P Talk Sign-Up Twitter Integration)

Rewards for Attendees

Attendees of VEWG events will be rewarded in tokens and NFTs, to encourage active and repeated participation.

(VEWG Attendance Reward Claim)

Claim your VE Trial Proposal POAP here: TipLink

Sign-up for J.U.P Talk

If you are interested in appearing as a guest on J.U.P Talk, please sign-up here:

Short Optional Video and Questionnaire Implementation

Video and Text-based Summary

An optional 30-second video will be displayed above the questionnaire accompanied with a shortened text-based summary (please see appendix items)

This video is intended to provide the necessary information to voters that may have conducted little or no prior research to cast a meaningful vote.

The video is optional and does not affect the process in any way.

The videos will include key details from a proposal that allow a voter to make a meaningful vote. The videos will be created inhouse by the VEWG, by the proposal groups and in collaboration with Catdets and Work Groups as discussed in Work Group and Catdet Alignment.

We now discuss other VEWG incentives, including; a voter knowledge and knowledge verification support.


We propose the introduction of a verification questionnaire. When a voter enters a proposal’s voting portal, they encounter three simple captcha style, knowledge verification questions. Currently, the questionnaire is obligatory (though optional consideration is being discussed to reduce friction) and includes three simple questions pertaining to basic aspects of the proposal under review.

These questionnaires will be created by VEWG in collaboration with the community. Questionnaire completion can be recorded with a browser cookie, meaning those with multiple voting wallets are only required to complete it once.

Please see below are current prototype designs.

Current Prototypes

Sax’s Working Prototype

(Prototype video:

Wake’s Verification Questionnaire Mock-Up Flow

We will extrapolate and visualise data we collect from all sources of our proposal.

Work Group and Catdet Alignment

We aim to expand VEWG by enlisting catdets from the community.

We will collaborate within the DAO to support voters facing accessibility challenges, such as visual impairments and learning difficulties. Our initiatives include live stream assistance, regular voter support sessions, and live support during votes.

These efforts will help catdets get involved and earn payments. VEWG will provide voice and text sessions to guide catdets. Overcoming language barriers is crucial, and DAO collaboration is essential.

Through open communication and mutual support, we can foster a culture of inclusivity. All voices should be heard and valued, leveraging the collective knowledge of catdets.


Juno, Our Mascot for Voter Empowerment

(Commissioned concept artwork by @kira0s)

Juno, named after the NASA satellite orbiting Jupiter, will come to life with content, purpose, and energy, providing impartial voter empowerment to all. Juno will feature in informative videos and educational content, showcasing catdet talents and offering diverse opportunities. Juno will feature in live streams and content.

Team Members

Team Socials

Discord Icon wake5 (devID: 127776013848412160)

Xtwitter Icon @wakegmi

Discord Icon saxweb3 (devID 565841664380239882)

Xtwitter Icon @saxweb3

We now discuss the trial budget.

Trial Period Budget



Success flow.

Questionnaire wireframe failure flow.

Herding Behaviour Studies


Article suggests that herding is particularly pertinent during times of high volatility.


Study suggests that during times of fear-herding is also prevalent.

More on request.


Generally good stuff here. A few thoughts:

  1. Any task referencing “create materials” is one I would question the efficacy of. The existence of this WG operates on the assumption that a problematically large share of the voting pop doesn’t read/comprehend/care about proposals… if that assumption is true, it’s likely also true that the same population will be even less likely to read/comprehend/care about educational materials. It’s the same hurdle with none of the consequence or incentive to participate.
  • If material (let’s call it content instead) is deemed necessary, there should be significant thought put into making it as lightweight & digestible as possible, along with being embedded or appended to the actual proposals as much as possible.
  1. Re: herd mentality & behavioral phenomena. There are some small UI improvements that have been & can be made (e.g. hiding the current results of a live poll), but as I stated on Twitter and in our discord, voting in crypto (and even more specifically, in the Jup community) has a motivation problem. I’m not sure this is readily solvable so long as there is something to be gained personally by supporting a project/entity rather opposing/abstaining.
  • One mitigating tactic does come to mind: ban voter bribes. Immediately remove any proposal (or any candidate inside a multiple-choice proposal) once it is discovered that they have promised, offered, or otherwise alluded to the idea that voting for them will be rewarded. Obviously there’s only so much control Jup can exert here but it sets an example.
  1. A lot of folks seem to be under the impression that we need to help proposal authors make their proposals more successful (e.g. easier to understand, more concise, etc). I would argue this is a gross misunderstanding: if a proposal reads like trash, it stands to reason that the proposal (or its author) had no business going up for a vote in the first place — i.e., the community should’ve pushed harder on the author when it was still in its infancy, and the barrier to reaching the public voting stage should be higher.
  • Said another way: we’re all looking at proposals thus far that are mostly not compelling (in my professional opinion & with all due respect), and asking “how do we compel voters to care more?”, when instead the question could arguably be, “should we be asking voters to care about things that aren’t compelling?” We’re treating proposal authors as if they’re friends of ours who need our help. The proposals are asking for capital; we are not their friends. We are judges. We become their friends after the proposal wins election.

All of this has been on my mind and here it is written in full detail, amazing job! I agree with everything here wholeheartidly.


Hats off to the visionaries behind this proposal! Introducing this essential feature for DAO proposal voters is a game-changer. Accessibility often flies under the radar, but it’s the cornerstone of inclusivity and progress. Let’s ensure this proposal receives the attention it deserves and triumphs based on its undeniable merit. Your support can pave the way for a more accessible and equitable future for all Catdets.

Regards @ari3iz MAYC #3098


This looks interesting and would potentially be effective in combatting issues some see with the voting procedure. If other measures were not taken and successful by the team in which the community felt the voting was 100% sufficient before this proposal went live, I’d vote for this.

This is an extremely well put together proposal by the way!

  1. Our approach aims to make these materials lightweight, digestible, and directly embedded into the voting page UI itself. This ensures that members encounter the information seamlessly, increasing the likelihood of an informed vote even without any prior research.

  2. Herd Mentality: we acknowledge the deeper motivation issue. While banning voter bribes is a plausible tactic to promote genuine engagement and discourage superficial voting, this is something we would leave to the DAO as a whole. VEWG strives to remain impartial on all proposals. Our aim is to empower voters, not become an auditing body.

  3. We agree that proposals should meet a certain standard before reaching the voting stage. While our focus is on empowering voters to make informed votes, even those who may have never seen the proposals but still engage in voting for active staking rewards.


I think this proposal makes sense, I like the idea of trying to garner learning opportunities for voters who’s only engagement with the JUP eco is during vote days - I think this will lead to less confusion on the timeline and add to the overall efficiency of the process. Especially in regards to ASR rewards.

As well as gathering much needed data on the voters to help determine adequate information on voter behavior.
I think just the data alone is worth it to know. Voter behavior data could be very beneficial to ironing out the kinks in the current and future processes. Even knowing how long a user spends reading the information they are given before a vote will be very pertinent information.

I also think informational video content will be helpful for a lot of people.

Language barrier will be tricky, unless you have someone who is bilingual in each of these specific languages who can help. I don’t know if the juice is worth the squeeze on this given the amount of time it would take to commit to this. When someone can translate respective posts in google translate or chatgpt.

I think the questionnaire regarding specific points in the proposal make sense, including adding at least one question about the budget/compensation for the proposal and or workers. There was a lot of confusion on this front on the last TWG vote.

I believe a system similar to LFG would also help with the problems stated. Make the voters chose between options instead of voting yes or no, because I believe there is a implicit bias to vote “yes” when ASR’s are involved. It could even be vote for your top 4 or 5 out of 8, to avoid the pvp dynamics of it. But it would also incentivize the proposers to think a bit harder on their proposal when they have to try and win over the community a bit more compared to a simple yes or no vote.

Surveys on these things would likely be beneficial in gauging certain proposed dynamics of the voting system, like you mentioned. Participation might be a hurdle, but there are ways to address that concern.

I appreciate that these guys have been building in the catdets vc, and I think that adds to the transparency and displays commitment to the process of finding a solution to the proposed problem.


This is awesome. I really like the idea of multilingual content if you guys are able to scale that effectively. Agree that Jupiter should lead the way with accommodating for disabilities & accessibility. :heart:


Morning all, thanks for this proposal – I think its a step in the right direction. Few points I want to zero in on here for further consideration;

  1. Reading and comprehension.

It is my belief that a very small fraction are actually challenged by ability to read proposal information (understanding it is a separate matter). We have to remember, community members have already done the following before even reaching any vote;

  • Understanding to some degree the merits of blockchain
  • Downloaded a wallet and setup with seed ect.
  • Moved funds w/ attention to contract details, gas, account details
  • Ideally, a sound understanding of wallet security and risk
  • Execute staking, dex/web3 interactions

The above points demonstrate a basic capability to do much more than what is being asked of the DAO with regards to voting. I don’t think we need to do any ‘hand-holding’ here – the issue is not really peoples capability to navigate and absorb proposal information, it is a lack of willingness to do so. Overall point here is – ‘Most can read the proposals and provide a more mindful consideration with their vote, but they willingly choose not to’.

  1. Language Barriers

This is a valid barrier, but I don’t think putting the translation task unto a few people is the right approach. Unless someone in the WG can understand several dozen languages, you’re not going to know if something was ‘lost in translation’ or not – which is a big thing when we’re talking about information that goes to vote.

We can hit ‘two birds with one stone’ here by simply reaching out in the discord language groups and asking for volunteer moderators and content translators. This will cost nothing to do, because you will find that there is already eager members in these groups that will want to do it for free. I won’t digress, but National groups is my greater preference than language groups, as they can form localized workgroups down the track later.

Overall, the language barrier is one of the greater barriers to overcome, especially when we get down to technical concepts within proposals. I do like that you’ve identified and considered this. An alternative solution here is to integrate AI to automate the translation via ‘language selection’ on the voting portal.

  1. Herd behavior

This can only exist when people are able to observe how others have voted. Otherwise, we can falsely attribute what is ‘consensus’ as a ‘herd problem’. This is not solved by hiding the live voting results either – its simply shared through other channels, and then you still have approval bias on top of that too.

I want to really drive this point home – Solve a problem by making it obsolete - that requires divergent thinking, not convergent. To often attempts at direct resolution end up compiling secondary issues as complexity overtakes elegant and simplistic design. A good example of divergent thinking: One fisherman keeps improving the fishing rod and gear they have (Convergent thinking)… the other one throws a stick of dynamite in the water and knocks all the fish out as the float to the top (Divergent thinking).

Without changing the end-point voting options, the herd behavior is just delayed through whatever measure you put before it – pop ups, videos, questionnaires. Removing that which enables the herd behavior is much more effective than trying to influence or change the herd behavior directly. This is done here by replacing the binary voting options that enable herd behavior, and changing to something that is highly customized (Yes, Gauges). In saying this – I do think what is proposed here is very much complimentary with the gauges systems I proposed. Here we’re focusing on improving processors for education and understanding, whilst the gauges system is more focused on related but separate issues (approval bias, subjective cost evaluation, accountability and so on).

  1. Optional/Mandatory checks

So here is my problem with this – if all the proposed strategies are both additive effort, and optional, then we don’t solve much here at all. As I mentioned above, the issue is more so a matter of peoples willingness to read and absorb proposal info. If we give the option to exercise that, then there is no point to having any of these measures at all – they too will be skipped over.
My suggestion here is to make these pre-checks mandatory, and also increase the difficulty of the questionnaire with 3 questions and 3 options for each question. Why? because if it is easier to ‘trail n error’ submission with the questionnaire doing random answer selection, than it is to absorb the proposal video and summery – then that’s what you’ll get. Just this slight change, in combination with short video, makes it so absorbing the information is likely the easier route than what you might call a ‘brute force’ pass.

  1. Botting

No its not, and no it wont. I wouldn’t even try to tackle this yet as it is 1000x more difficult. Would recommend to just remove this point entirely. If you wish to know why – can view my response to the LFG application for Solana ID, of which – that teams reply completely dodge and avoided the question about AI Agents and reputation systems. I don’t blame them – no one has a solution to it.

  1. Information/Education Gaps

Here is the crux of the problem – the majority of voters are unable to identify fair value with WG budgets at all. In addition, not a great understanding of what exactly is the workload like, expertise needed, and time it takes to deliver most things that most WG’s will propose. This is not an easy issue to remedy, but what I do think can be immediate improved much greater - is more information around the costs and duties.

Too many proposals focus almost exclusively on the problem they’re attending, and the benefits of the solution they provide. Then a bit of fine print around the costs involved.

No one knows how these figures are arrived at, and its the same with all WG proposals so far. How did you come up with $3,900 each? Contingency for what? and how was that number arrived at.

So there is 2160 hours total over 3 months, this looks like a basic calculation of dividing by 10. That works out an average of 2-3 hours each day, and we have on average 2-3 proposals a month. Is there such a demand for live support around proposals to justify the required hours and costs for this? We’re not even sure yet if such a service is something people want to have – so here I would first offer the service, and then see if its viable to continue it based on feedback and use.

Personally, I’m not much of a haggler for costs unless I can’t understand the rationale behind it. This is not the same as itemization – rather a call for greater transparency around what has ‘gone into’ factoring the costs. In short, we wish to evaluate what considerations has gone into specific cost estimates.


  • Need more transparency around rationale for cost evaluations
  • Recommend to remove intent to control botting, because its not achievable.
  • Mandate pre-checks for voting
  • Get language groups to translate and moderate
  • Herd behavior is encouraged by the voting options, need greater customization with voting options to dilute herd behavior and negate approval bias.
  • People are capable, the issue is willful complacency.

I would like to see more information on what is the roadmap/planning intended for the 3 months ahead – what is approximately intended and by when. I’m inclined to vote yes here, but I would say this will be a difficult one to get over the line as its essentially two proposals – a vote on the cost and the strategy. Some may be in favor of one but not the other. I would also look into the Tech-group proposal to see if there is any overlap with expertise and potential to collaborate and combine efforts into a single umbrella group.


I agree with this proposal, mostly on verifying that voters understand the content that they are voting on. Either a questionnaire or a video that can’t be skipped or both. It may present a problem for voters with multiple wallets and time constraints but maybe there is a solution to that. Overall a great proposal.


1. RE: Herd Behavior & 30-second Optional Video and Questionnaire Implementation

I’m fundamentally, and morally, against any mandatory barriers to voting, no matter how small they are; including, but not limited to, a voter’s understanding of a proposal. The only requirement should be to stake at least 1 JUP.

If it’s an optional prompt/pop-up that voters can choose to interact with, I don’t see any issues with it, but I don’t think it actually solves the problem. I think an implementation of some form of rank choice voting(there are many types), in combination with hiding the vote totals in the UI until the voting period has closed, would have a much greater effect on the herding issue.

2. RE: Accessibility Considerations & Disabilities

One thing to think about here is people with visual disabilities. I personally know people with Deuteranopia(a form of red-green color blindness) that have trouble with viewing the voting site. An option to change the voting site color scheme based on common types of color blindness would be very helpful for some.


1). The questions are designed so that they are extremely easy to compelete, they don’t present such a staunch barrier as I think you are referring to (rightly so too, we agree that there should be no barriers to voters!); just a little friction to encourage a more meaningful vote.

We have definitely discussed the optional vs mandatory issue a lot as a team and with the community, and included notes on this debate in the proposal.

We want all phases of verification process to be speedy, for those willing to do prior-research and unwilling to do prior-research. If we as a DAO and/or WG discover data (or consensus) that refutes the benefits of a mandatory process, we are open to making it an optional step. We have designed it as such that it is already possible.

We can’t champion accessibility whilst also creating immense barriers, that’s for certain.

2). We hope to make the process accessible to all.

That includes those with Tritanopia, Deuteranopia, and Protanopia. As-well as all the other issues that can effect a person’s ability to participate fully, in the current system.

Part of my studies and professional experiences, covered accessibility in applications and processes, I intend to apply it all with rigor; and feel extremely fortunate that I may be able to do so.

P.s: Thank you for thinking about other’s, as you have here, you are a credit to the DAO and would like to talk to you further about this in voice if you are able. I’m there a lot!


We included the solution in the text, those with multiple wallets on the same browser will only have to do it once.

The video and text-content in the current flow is completely optional.

Thanks for your reply RMB!


Hey Worza, thanks so much for taking the time to respond in such detail! Here’s our response, hope we covered everything. Also feel free to hop in chat any time, we’ll be there answer any questions at all!

We are testing comprehension in the quiz.

We have considered AI, actually our first idea was an AI Chat-bot, branded with Juno.

We are open to integrating AI, but for now we think manual and human input would ensure no anomalous AI responses and encourage DAO participation

Training an LLM is possible, setting rules for responses etc. I have training in these things also, so implementation is possible in the future.

@0xSoju will be making the votes blind, great addition. Our proposal is complimentary to his additions.

We feel that it has to be mandatory too, glad we are aligned on this. A discussion phase is important to us, though.

We think most people do want to learn about the proposals, but they don’t want to seek it out. We think more easily available information will mean that more people will participate.

The botting issue is just a convenient side-benefit and frictions such as our proposal is objectively harder to automate.

Catdet Vote Support budget is based on 72 hours per vote, assuming 3 votes during the trial period.

We’ve allowed for enough funds to cover the voting, although if find it is not all used or circumstances change unused funds would be returned.

Contingency is there to cover extra content or development support. Salaries have been calculated conservatively and are against current salaries and relevant qualifications/experience. We are keen to preserve as much of the DAO’s resources as possible.


1). The questions are designed so that they are extremely easy to compelete, they don’t present such a staunch barrier as I think you are referring to (rightly so too, we agree that there should be no barriers to voters!); just a little friction to encourage a more meaningful vote.

We have definitely discussed the optional vs mandatory issue a lot as a team and with the community, and included notes on this debate in the proposal.

We want all phases of verification process to be speedy, for those willing to do prior-research and unwilling to do prior-research. If we as a DAO and/or WG discover data (or consensus) that refutes the benefits of a mandatory process, we are open to making it an optional step. We have designed it as such that it is already possible.

We can’t champion accessibility whilst also creating immense barriers, that’s for certain.

2). We hope to make the process accessible to all.

That includes those with Tritanopia, Deuteranopia, and Protanopia. As-well as all the other issues that can effect a person’s ability to participate fully, in the current system.

Part of my studies and professional experiences, covered accessibility in applications and processes, I intend to apply it all with rigor; and feel extremely fortunate that I may be able to do so.

P.s: Thank you for thinking about other’s, as you have here, you are a credit to the DAO and would like to talk to you further about this in voice if you are able. I’m there a lot!


Not a bad proposal at all as it can address a few things to help a fairly good number of voters. That said, the project proposals get presented here, summarised again by the @CWG, several YouTube interviews & shorts, tweets etc that get thrown out there before the vote. Not a tech person but before each vote I have gone thru these materials over & over & I am able to narrow it down to the best I think has potential. So when it gets to voting day, I just want to come & vote and what ever changes are implemented shouldn’t make it compulsory for someone to read or listen to something first before vote. There should be a a direct vote option for others who have read & made their decision before voting day.


I don’t see a need for a WG for this. I believe the current team members can make sufficient process changes to address the majority of the perceived issues.

I’ve already been making easily digestible synopses for the last two rounds of voting. It’s just a matter of finding the best way to get it in front of the people prior to voting.


I feel that there are details in the proposal that do need further work from a dedicated team, for example; did you read the information on accessibility, IP and cadet alignment/involvement?


To train your model to set the right rules to make it operational, you need to rely on the work of others who develop reference content so you can do it properly, right?
So @Opacks to develop educational posters and many members have confirmed that they are useful. For my part, I’ve taken on the task of adapting them into French.

Being a native speaker of the language is necessary, but not sufficient. You need to be familiar with Web 3 terminology and understand the underlying DEFI mechanisms, and Jupiter’s specific operating conditions (which is what we’re interested in) in order to correctly transite a technical expression or acronym without the risk of confusing the neophyte.

You can considerably improve the semantic clarity of a proposition by using the right vocabulary, even if this means making major changes to the sentence structure. Automatic translators stick too closely to syntax. They’re good as assistants (in the preliminary phase, this is how I use them).

Once the translation work has been completed, it still needs to be formatted, distributed and made available for consultation anywhere, anytime. But this consideration is beyond the scope of this post…(Catdet WG)

Embedding an LLM on the voting page or elsewhere can be useful if what comes out redirects to a source ultimately validated by trusted members of the community.
However, this is no substitute for the preliminary phase of building up a corpus base in regional languages.

So I’m planning to draw up a proposal for a working group on the emergent model, whose aim would be to create this corpus of documents already under construction in all the languages that would support this initiative.

Other points of detail constituting the requirements for the formation of a working group will be discussed in advance before the proposal is drafted. I would be delighted to be able to contribute also to the formation of the LLM model, the development of which could form part of the objectives of this new working group.


Read the proposal and looks good. Would like to see this implemented