Note:
I have decided to change the topic to is the Dao really decentralised. I have left everything as is so as not to confuse anyone. Since this was about the jupuary vote and thankfully it looks like it will pass, I realised most of the conversation naturally drifted towards voting power anyways. Maybe it’s a good topic we all need to have a chat about.
Below is what I originally posted.
With a 58% yes vote the team should just decide what’s best. That’s what I think. Just because ultimately and naturally there will be so many options and wishes it would be hard for us all to have our needs met and agree. I feel in this case the team probably is the group that would guide the best outcome for Jupiter as a whole. Plus we are all probably getting tired, right, off trying to get this finalised. Decentralised decision making is very important in 99% of the cases. I propose a vote to see if we are happy in this case to give the power to the team.
Update:
Furthermore in this chart you can see that currently around 14% have more than 50% of the voting power.
They have too much integrity to do that. That would completely fracture the community and go against everything that Jupiter is about.
If the community were to vote on a proposal like this it would not fracture anything, as the community would want it. After all the team initially created the project. It would show the opposite that the team of Jupiter can be trusted to help a stuck and very complex situation. I don’t believe a situation like this would come about very often. The main problem is the community presently is divided not because it considers what would be the best for the long term of the Jupiter ecosystem, but because of where we are in the crypto cycle and how that may benefit or hurt each person in anyway involved with Jup.
I believe a lot has been learned from all of this, right. It probably will make Jupiter better by putting safeguards into place to make it even more decentralised and a situation like this one won’t effect what is in the best interest long term.
Focus on the issue at hand… which is aligning the community for this second vote.
Come back to this thread once we voted a few times 
No, this is such a moronic take. Are you even aware of what the point of a dao is?
Yes am very aware and support decentralised decision making. The problem is this Dao is currently not decentralised. When 10% can effect the vote by 50% to serve their self interests.
You are just getting your knickers in a twist because I am pointing out the issue. Please elaborate on your statement.
A Quick google search, perhaps you do not know what a Dao even is?
A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) is an emerging form of organizational structure with no central governing body and whose members share a common goal of acting in the best interest of the entity . Popularized by blockchain enthusiasts, DAOs make decisions using a bottom-up management approach.
Solution: Introduce a badge system whereby anyone with 100$ Jup (numbers fictional) staked and has enough usage on the platform gains voting power. Larger stakers also get badges depending on how much Jup staked. One would need to balance the amount of voting power large stakers get to other genuine consistent users. This will decentralise the Dao and avoid people gaming the system.
Stakers would still get rewards based on amount staked. This is usually what staking is intended for.
The 70% target is totally undemocratic. Never should have been set like this to begin with.
Votes are arbitrary and so is the DAO if the team is just going to decide on a whim this vote is 30% this vote is 50% or this one 70%. This is totally against the notion of decentralization. This is a centralized vote, decided based on decisions of the team, not the DAO. You don’t get arbitrary 70% requirements in a truly decentralized DAO.
Strong majority voted yes, even when most of the voting power is concentrated in the hands of whales.
To ignore this is wrong, you aren’t uniting the community, you’re pitting 40% of the voting power who want one thing against 60% of the community who want another thing and in a democratic system would have got that thing passed.
There’s no point at all of a DAO if the team can arbitrarily set the vote to be 70% required on a whim.
Why not 73%?
On other votes why not 53%?
The argument that voting power should be based on token holdings is legitimate, but pretending that arbitrary shifts of required vote totals is legitimate is ten times more moronic than anything the other guy said, take a look in the mirror.
This is a centralized vote, decided based on decisions of the team, not the DAO. You don’t get arbitrary 70% requirements in a truly decentralized DAO.
Actually you are right. I think the team made a mistake by giving the 70% buffer. I do believe they did it because they were trying to get consensus over several votes by proposing different solutions so as to align most of the community. It may have been a mistake.
The real mistake was to have a system of voting power to begin with. This works great in a lot of cases but is not working with this situation. To much self interest to have it be about what’s best for the ecosystem.
I still think that the last vote shows that the DAO should undergo a due diligence/reform. Is it better a census base majority or should it be per capita? Or a mix? Who decides what kind of supermajorities are needed, when and what for? Just to mention some topics
Thought on it for a while. I think obviously the Dao decides everything after mesures are put into place to insure equality. The voting power could be increased for genuine users of Jupiters trading platform. Stakers who are of course also genuine but with large capital decreased to match that of genuine user’s of the trading platform and small stakers without any real trading volume given proportional voting power to reflect their engagement. Basically a point / badge system. Would be somewhat complicated to arrange the algorithms but worth it.
My question is, doesn’t the team have enough tokens to prevent the 70% supermajority? I generally believe in the JUP team, some of the most impressive work in crypto, but, ultimately the team gets 50% of the supply right? That’s what I recall seeing back on token launch. Even if they could throw 15-20% on No, isn’t this a backdoor way of being like welp I guess we have to give you guys less tokens because the supermajority said no?
the team’s allocation is locked in a cold wallet. Cannot be used to vote
How can we balance decentralization with efficiency in decision-making, especially when the community is divided and the situation is complex?
Would have to be a overall vote from the community. Yes or no to trust the team on a single decision. Cant be an open ended hand off of authority though.
Danrk I would like to welcome you to Jupsearch. That’s a great question. I think roadblocks come along once in a while, these tend to be opportunities for change.
We will have to see what everyone thinks.
That’s exsactly what we are both proposing. Agree with you fully.