Jupiter Trial Work Groups: Post Vote Thoughts

1/ JWGs are focking important for extending the capability and scope of the Jupiverse, and I am committed to spending as much time/effort as needed to figure out both the creation and accountability processes alongside the community and other WGs.

2/ Like 99% of things we do, JWGs are experiments. There are lots we need to figure out as a community across the entire stack - from formation, figuring out emergent talents, how to do community level assessments, best operational practises for the dao, etc.

We will continue to scope experiments such that potential harm is low, learn rapidly from them, apply the lessons, and move forward fast. We will not be a community that is stuck in ideas or philosophy or quagmire.

3/ JWGs do wayyyyy more than just moderators - they are in essence political startups - expected to rally the community towards collaborating with them in initiatives and content creation, commit substantial amounts of time to working in public, generate strong value for the ecosystem via their efforts, and stand up for themselves and their work in public.

We need leaders, not moderators. A big part of the process is in emerging new leaders, assessing them as a community, and empowering them in terms of capital, legitimacy and support. We need to nail this process, not just for Jupiter, but as a new working model for the decentralized world.

4/ The team did not personally know any of the candidates this time round, current candidates emerged via active participation from the community. For future trial workgroups, aspiring work groups should have a history of doing great work together, as well as clear broad support from the community and a focused scope before going on trial.

To be clear, i don’t think there is anything wrong with this particular process, we had to move forward given that we have been talking about it for a couple of months, and this exact process was needed to figure out how to further improve it and make future trial cycles more community driven.

4/ For now, we need to move past the differences and move on with a united front towards growing the Jupiverse - there is so much to do together as a community. As one of the leading communities and platforms in the decentralized world, we cannot be bogged down and get stuck via infighting.

At the same time, obviously - the differences are very real, some of the critiques very correct, and some of the improvements suggested very much needed.

So we will do both - move on while addressing the key concerns that many have floated.

5/ Let’s give the new trial working groups a big congrats for being passed by the DAO, and give them the time and opportunity to do the work they were voted to do. We will have 3-5 months to work with them before they are eligible to be part of the full vote.

It’s crucial that we collaborate with them to the best of our ability, otherwise we are just setting them up to fail, which is the exact opposite from what we should be doing.

6/ There were some key areas of concern, including trial work group formation, cost to DAO in terms of failure, voter effort in voting, prior work in terms of contribution, high pay for individuals as well as some key scandals in terms of background.

These are very important topics that are impossible to address here in a way that does justice to them, so we will work on these over the course of the next few weeks and months.

7/ Last but not least, working and standing up for yourself in public is hard. Your entire self worth, work history and sometimes even how you look and various parts of identity is often put on trial.

Of course, it is all par for the course, but i would encourage everyone to be kind, not to spread half baked information, and give people time to prove themselves and their intentions.

Time is the best teacher, and we need to set ourselves up well to receive the lessons.

Summary/ JWGs are experimental models for decentralized leadership. Figuring out the trial process is one of the crucial aspects of this experiment. We will work on figuring it out, but in the meantime, we will respect the vote, give a massive congrats to the candidates, and support them fully in the next few months.

In the meantime, we will gather all the feedback in one place, execute on improvements where necessary, encourage new areas of leadership together - and improve as a Jupiverse community together :wink:

And who knows? With some luck, we might even end up pioneering a new working model for the decentralized economy. But luck never goes to the fearful - it goes to the brave ones. So brave we will be, and take every division, debate, detractor as a chance and opportunity to learn and get better.


Banger post, Meow!

Thanks for taking time to address everything and set the tone.


1 Like

Time for all Catdets to support the Working Groups to continue improving the Jupiverse! Lets all together move ahead united to push forward the decentralized meta!

Jupiter Exchange is building the best DAO in web3 with the best community in web3, with the best developers and leaders in web3. Jupiter is destined to bring decentralization all over the world!

Proud catdet of Jupiter Exchange! LFG!!!


1 Like

Ya’ll heard meow…

Let them cook first!
If you dont like whats been served, change the ingredients first.
Before the chef.

That is why it is called TRIAL.

J4J meeeooowww!


Having read the various JWG submissions, I saw this as a business expense to attempt something new to grow the community, revenue and bring in new talent. As with any business, you have to adapt and grow, or you will quickly fall behind. I’m still stuck in the old world, but slowly trying to move into this one. Because the way I see it, if we don’t initially take some calculated risk, we will slowly fade away. So I supported this JWG as a trial, if it works, great, if it doesn’t, we learn from our mistakes and try again. Its the only way we will grow and strive.


This is a great point, and I’m glad you’ve brought attention to it.

I was talking with “yotOe” in discord about how culture plays a critical role, and that we need to foster a desire for better relationships. In the online world, it is all too easy for people to dismiss the fact that there is another human being on the other end of communications. I felt bad for the Reddit WG lead – I can see the guy is passionate, genuine, experienced and put forward a very fair proposal. Things went beyond due diligence with healthy scrutiny, and too many assumed too much whilst welcoming his ambition with distain.

Its also hard to blame those individuals that acted in such a way – objectively they too are passionate about Jupiter and expressed their protective posture with overall good intent; albeit – with misplaced conclusions.

This is going to happen again, and again – just part of the territory of such a large and diverse community. But what all of us need to encourage – is more civility and mutual respect. As we put the writing on the wall – both literally and figuratively, there is a tendency for ego’s and pride hindering quality engagement, and much of this stems from peoples unwillingness to validate and try to understand one another.

I too have been incredibly vigilant with skepticism and critique – and not everyone welcomes that, particularly with a broad mix of backgrounds and cultural norms that we all bring into the community with us. In this sense, it would be prudent to be more mindful of what we say and how we say it. Many people are sharing their unique contributions, ideas, input and proposals – done so out of passion for achieving a common goal we all share; the growing success of Jupiter.

Overall, this is an amazing community with immense talent among us. Its inspiring to see everyone’s involvement, and so I can only encourage that we nurture such engagement with a more friendly, thoughtful, and respectful atmosphere. For some, that may take a little extra effort – but its worth it.


While I don’t disagree with any of your points, some of these Working Groups are asking up to x4 the average salary of individuals from the wealthier western nations. I’m sorry, but 60-70k for 3 months of promised work (Reddit Working Group) is a price tag that seems steep especially when you see that thus far, it’s only one person who says they will hire moderators, but how many Reddit moderators or moderation in most forums actually receive any kind of payment? Most of these working groups, similar projects have DAOs that handle this kind of work more than successfully without such a high price tag which also drives community involvement. If they were the ones actually implementing the site itself instead of using Reddit, that would be one thing but the bulk of the work in that instance is already done.
All of the capital used to pay these groups should be done so over a certain time period and contingent on the quality of work provided and especially considering the cost to investors. If I am giving any entity 20k in a month, the quality of the work provided better be amongst absolute highest. That money would be better spent working on our own sites as opposed to spending it on another site. You could also hire an actual brand management company that would handle a lot more than just Reddit for less money with an already established reputation.
I only voted yes to one of these groups, as only one seemed actually reasonable. The other two truly felt like people trying to grab cash. Just my opinion


I agree with everything that was stated here… I would like to point out that it seemed that basically the whole community supported the ideas behind these WGs, i think the main divisive point was the compensation targets for each WG… while I am not privvy to the current bag the DAO has in terms of funds, we also should be prudent and business savvy when it comes to our WGs… each community member should be thinking:

  1. is there value in this WG for the JUP DAO (Does this align with our current vision)? Or can the idea be fulfilled by an existing/other proposed WG?
  2. is this a WG that REQUIRES funding out of the gate?
    2A) if so, is what proposed a just amount or is it too little/too much
  3. have I covered any oustanding biases/preconceived notions regarding this proposal that would not allow me to vote for what is best for the community?

We are running a business here. And I think those making proposals should also be ok with not necessarily being the leader of the group they are proposing, of course they should be members but the head of each group should (at least in part) be chosen (maybe through interviews?) By the CWG or the like…OR maybe have a project/program management team to drive success/completion of targets for each WG? … please excuse my musings…

Back on track… these first few votes have shown everyone the real difficulty of the democratic system… getting even a group of a few people to all agree on anything is practically impossible. That is why WGs are so important in general ESPECIALLY an overarching WG that really has the main/final say for the good of the organization. It also just so happened we had 3 WGs proposed that all pertained to very similar things: community growth/engagement. Honestly you could just have one larger WG for “Brand Management” and have subgroups within that for each WG that was voted on… this should not be a vote and should be decided by CWG.

Onward and forward! LFG!

Congratulations on expressing so clearly the importance of JWG within the context of the Jupiverse. Your commitment to understanding and promoting processes of accountability and creation within the community is evident. Your vision of transforming JWG into true “political startups,” capable of generating value and actively collaborating with the community, is an ambitious yet full of potential goal.

We recognize that experiments entail risks, but we appreciate your proactive approach in analyzing and swiftly learning from them to move forward. Your emphasis on the need for leaders rather than mere moderators resonates strongly and reflects an innovative perspective for the future of decentralized work.

Additionally, your considerations regarding the formation of working groups, community involvement, and respect for individuality and self-esteem are very valid and appreciated.

Congratulations again to the new trial working groups and to you for your commitment to supporting them. We are excited to see how the Jupiverse will continue to grow and evolve under your guidance and that of the community. We will continue to offer our full support and work together to constantly improve and innovate.

“Before you are a leader, success is all about growing yourself. When you become a leader, success is all about growing others.”
-Jack Welch

1 Like


I agree with you and also only vote yes to 1. People just see voting and auto yes shit without reading. I will always be against paying for fucking reddit. People do that shit daily for free. Even mod for free. Yet im sorry to say we have some really dumb people just throwing money away on a trust me bro proposal.

Agreed, it’s easy to say move fast & fix the plane as we go but… we’re barely into takeoff and already the groups being proposed are either not compelling/well-thought-out, or are ops/meta groups in reaction to the former.

I think a few of us agree one major misstep here, as you also called out, is the incentive to write up a proposal knowing you’re the defacto recipient of the capital.

Consider adding your thoughts to the Talent Recruitment WG here, which could help put some much needed pressure on proposals if we can start saying “we have folks who can do this job, we don’t need the author (or we don’t even need it to be a WG)”

You definitely nailed it. Working with the Jupiverse Community and help it reach it’s goal is what the JWG and all other WG’s are all about.