LFG Retrospective & Feedback Round #2

After going through the feedback from this post and the town hall, we present you with the proposed changes we wish to implement going into round 3 of LFG.

Please feel free to leave any feedback on any of the items here which you like or dislike.

Informational Changes:

  1. A DAO twitter that will cover DAO information and announcements such as votes. Additionally, it will put out an announcement every day of a live vote.

    This will be a collaborative approach with the Jupiter team to help ensure the account is able to propagate properly, but it will reduce the burden on the main JUP account so that items are not competing with product announcements, and also giving WG members access.

  2. Additional clarity around ASR:

    Some people still do not fully understand ASR yet. There are UI changes which the team is working on to help remedy this. In addition, the CWG and catdets have worked on some informational resources so far. However, we will make an effort to ensure this topic is more understood whenever we have chances to do so, such as mentioning it deliberately during the twitter spaces that coincide with the start of the vote.

  3. Video Explainers for votes:

    Some people learn much better through video content than written content, which explains the success of platforms like tiktok and youtube shorts. One idea is to create or source short videos that are embedded on the vote page and can serve as an alternative to the written summary. This could be presented in multiple different formats including but not limited to: 30 second pitches from the candidates, in-depth explainers, talking head videos, or supercuts of the candidates interviews.

    We are unsure if this could be implemented in the upcoming vote, but regardless we are open to assistance from any cadets who would like to get involved.

  4. Creating a Calendar to more accurately display the timeline of the LFG process.

    We want to permit for some degree of flexibility, but showing a high level overview of how we anticipate the process to pan out over the course of weeks can give people a better idea of when it is most important to pay attention. At least some sort of tentative calendar.

Process Changes:

  1. We propose reducing the number of winners from 2 to 1.

    To ensure adequate competition, the prestige of launching with Jupiter, and that the highest quality candidates are continuously chosen, we believe that launching a single project per round will ensure that adequate attention is paid to the launch of each token.

    It is about the quality of time spent between the Jupiter community, team and CWG with each and every project.

    Additionally, it is unfair for second-place winners to be overshadowed by first-place winners. The pacing of launches is subject to change and in terms of candidates, we believe 4-6 is still an optimal number. However, the number of candidates may vary depending on both market and social conditions, as well as the quality of applicants in any given month.

    This will also allow us and the Jupiter team to more intimately focus on each winner after each launch to help deliver the best launch experience possible.

    However, we are open to exceptions in the case that votes are insanely close. Such as in the case that first and second place in a vote have 45 and 44% respectively. We will stay vigilant in regards to this and listen to the community.

  2. AMAs shifting over to twitter spaces:

    Discord AMAs have proven difficult to be consistent in terms of audio quality (with 30% of the audience not able to hear at times, CWG members unable to speak, recordings failing despite redundancies etc), and have a lower surface area for less engaged community members. Additionally, it comes with an intrinsic recording and publishing function and provides for another opportunity to broadcast LFG candidates publicly.

  3. LFG Candidate Roles in Discord

    Candidates need a specific role to be effectively pinged for questions, one that is not catdet — which is how it has been done until now. Also keeping catdet separate from it is important to maintaining the integrity of the role.

Changes We Want More In-depth Discussion On:

  1. Blind Voting:

    This has been a topic of vigorous debate, and does not have an immediate and obvious answer.

    Arguments on the For side include: It reduces herd behavior, it might reduce people who vote strategically, it enhances voter confidence, and encourages more deliberate voting.

    Arguments Against include: Reduced transparency, potentially decreases engagement (people cast vote instead of discussing more), the potential for surprise outcomes, the fact that it isn’t actually hidden on-chain, and the fact that people cannot make adjustments in response to use feedback live.

    We are open to trialing out blind voting for LFG round 3, but we would first like to invite additional community discussion on the topic as this is the most contentious of all the suggestions with strong arguments both for and against.