LFG Retrospective & Feedback Round #3

With the 3nd round of LFG now under our belt — it would serve us well to reflect on what happened.

A retrospective:

Over 217 million JUP cast a vote for their preferred candidate, with debridge winning the right to launch on the LFG launchpad.

Additionally, feedback from the Round 2 Forum post was incorporated, with multiple changes including:

  • The first blind vote
  • AMAs now held on twitter spaces
  • A reduction of candidates, and going from 2 ==> 1 winners.
  • A calendar presented at the beginning to show the cadence of events

Also some smaller quality of life items like giving candidates their own unique blue role within discord instead of catdet were added.

However, now we would like to solicit your feedback

To get you started, we present a few questions:

  1. Were there any aspects which you particularly liked?

  2. What improvements would you like to see?

  3. Did you like the blind voting? Should we keep it for future votes?

  4. Thoughts around a vote timer that prevents you from voting for X amount of time?

Thank you for taking the time to be a part of this co-creative process. We look forward to your comments, and similarly to last time, we will post a follow up under this thread in addition to hosting a townhall event.


I personally think it went great! I appreciate all the work that goes into this. I really didn’t have much of an issue with the previous set-up, though i do see the changes were beneficial.
I guess if there is anything to lookback on this round, it is maybe the types of interactions the community is having with our LFG candidates.
I think that hard questions and critical feedback is important to the process…however, there is a line, and i feel that sometimes in both this forum and on Discord, that line is being nudged or crossed pretty regularly.
That Pigmo post got so nasty you guys locked it.
I’d love to see some community guidelines in place on this subject.
I’d hate to see projects begin to avoid us…which i could see happening if we become a meat grinder…slander, fake charts, accusations, name calling.



I will try to be concise. Blind vote I believe is a keeper. It is clear how herd mentality works, especially in online anonymous environments. Voting without distraction is the best voting you can do.
Really liked the way X spaces work. Definitely a plus.
In all honesty, I also believe ad hominem attacks are the lowest form of discourse known to humankind. Try your best to moderate the hell out of them. The quality of projects interested in the launchpad, will soon mirror the quality of the community for better or worse. I would like to hope for better :slight_smile:

Keep up the good work.


Blind voting was great, and I think it should continue. In order to avoid confirmation bias it is imperative that your vote is yours and yours alone, unaffected by what others are voting. I think it will ensure more distributed votes instead of heavily weighted towards one option. Furthermore it also discounts the possibility of voters thinking ‘my favorite is a lost cause’.

I would have liked more relevant information about the candidates available on vote.jup.ag. Maybe a link to their introduction right there in the voting page or something? It would improve pagination.


The blind voting is actually good to prevent the spam of voting the top it should be continued further but timer shouldn’t be introduced better to announce the vote before 1 week so people research on their own , timer would mean nothing we can’t force anyone it won’t help
We need to bring in more cool projects on launchpad and not to mention the Claimpad is way too under utilized :saluting_face:
Also just a concern if there is 1 winner instead of 2 winners before don’t you think the ASR (my $$$) would be less than previous in a way as I don’t get fees of supposed 2nd winner


Blind voting made this session a lot more engaging, I was actually surprised with the results given the conversations in Discord. Goes to show that voter sentiment has much to be explored. Decisions are being made by voters outside of Discord, great to see! Projects have their work cut out for them. Also liked that we had less projects and a single winner, made tracking project details a lot easier. I liked that there were AMAs on X and Reddit in audio and written format.

Extend the voting period by 2 days or shift it so that it runs into the weekend. There was a lot of user feedback about this. Set up a notification system either on jup.ag or via a 3rd party (jup mobile feature?) would be great to set reminders. Would be cool to have a gcal link set up for voting periods to easily add to calendars. Add an abstain option for voting, I was not 100% on any of this rounds candidates would have loved to withhold my vote. Add some requirements to LFG projects, request two short form videos for JUP to use for user education. Given the impact of LFG, they should be able to provide this. A 3-5 minute YouTube video outlining product, token, governance, etc. 30-60 hype video. Catdets should not be doing free marketing for other projects we need to keep our votes valuable.

Did you like the blind voting? Should we keep it for future votes? Yes.

Thoughts around a vote timer that prevents you from voting for X amount of time? I did not even notice the timer, I don’t like the idea of it - seems inconsequential.


Blind Voting was great- Not sure what you could change,I need to understand the advantages of a time… does not seem needed to me. Perhaps… Out of the 3 4 or 6 on the vote, take the two top winners at the end and do another round of voting just for them. When everyone just has the two to choose from they may have had a second favorite that they will vote for now that their project is out of the running.

1 Like

Hi cats!

  1. I love how Blind Voting works and personally I think it went great.

  2. It would be much better if during the voting period, cats in the server were not be allowed to directly or tell someone what project to vote. I’m not against about promoting the project you voted but it might be better if we have a proper discussion on why we’re voting this project. It will not only help the DAO being healhty but also helps all the cats to be more responsible to their votes.

  3. Yes, I believe we should keep the Blind Voting.

  4. Personally I would love that. It would be also nice if there’s a link with their introduction while the voter is waiting for the timer.

Overall, it was a nice round. Congrats deBridge and to all participants on round#3.

1 Like

I think the blind vote was great. I could focus on my own decision, not others’. Definitely a must for future votes.

1 Like

I particularly liked the ease of which the voting process is made with an easy-to-use interface, and information on each project easily accessible.

I think the 30 days lock on un-staking JUP is very long and could be much shorter.

I think the voter timer aspect is very sensible, however I didn’t notice it at all during the process.


Thought it was simple and to the point. Agree with other posters that anyone who can’t behave or comment civilly should be moderated and comment removed

1 Like

Blind voting is a good thing, overall helps getting more objective results + adds a little suspense waiting for the results.

It could be interesting though to provide direct links to more info regarding vote content on the vote page. That vote just stated that more info was on the forum, but providing simplified access to summaries about the different projects could help occasional users to make their mind up.

Nice round though :slight_smile:

1 Like

I’ve seen rumors that candidates give additional quotas to some of the most influential voters and arrange incitement. If this is true, it is not fair, so it should be improved and the candidate should be deprived.

1 Like
  • Blind vote
  • Delegation of vote to not vote with a cold wallet
  • Yes, and yes!
  • I don’t understand the point
1 Like

I think the final point revolves around creating a timer which prevents you from voting immediately after the vote has opened, in order to encourage people to read through the candidates introductions.

However, I don’t think this is necessary if the material is available before the vote regardless. I would however like more information available about the candidates on the voting page, for those who might not want to deep-dive into each candidate.

We always want users to know what they’re voting about, but we got to accept that some simply won’t take the time to inform themselves, and make any possible effort to make at least some information available at their fingertips.

1 Like

Blind voting = gud.
Twitter Spaces AMA = gud.
Time restricted vote = not gud. You could just link to project summaries from the voting page to help voters make more informed decisions, we don’t need extra steps or barriers to entry.

Bigger picture / top priority imho: JUP & LFG should address sub-optimal tokenomics for launchpad candidates. Projects launching recently with low float & high FDV (eg. <20% circulating supply at lunch, fully diluted values >$500M) are underperforming this cycle. Many down bad by more than -70% from launch. My concern is that over time less people will engage with LFG if projects are down only in price & it will negatively impact trading volumes & reputation.


Blind voting was great, every month atleast one LFG

1 Like

I think blind voting was good, I like it.

1 Like

I agree, 30 days is a long time, especially if somebody is urgently needing some funds for an emergency IRL.

1 Like

My feedback is combined within the quotations; unfamiliar with this bulletin board type.