LFG Retrospective & Feedback Round #3

The blind voting was very good.
It allowed me to get a good understanding of each project before voting and I am happy with the results.
I also think blind voting should continue in the future.


Again, I think changing your vote shouldn’t be allowed. This way, changing your vote at the last minute for the winning project wouldn’t be possible. Also, it would be nice to see who the leading candidates are before voting. This way, if you are not familiar with a project that is leading, you could research it a little more and find out why it may be in the lead/better candidate. Expecting everyone thoroughly research every project before voting is not something realistic.

1 Like

If you have the skills, you could extract the data which I suspect some are. If there wasn’t an advantage why bother? From my understanding, so far, all winning LFG projects have airdropped an extra amount of tokens for those that voted for them. This is an incentive to pick the winning project in hopes of getting a bigger airdrop and why I don’t think it’s fair if you don’t have access to the data equally.

1 Like

I disagree. Researching each project before voting, at least on a basic level, is pretty easy. Especially, with the one-pagers that are out there prior to and during the vote.

Not every winning project has (not sure about Sharky) or will be (Sanctum or deBridge will not be) airdropping tokens. Even when they have, it’s not much (see Uprock). But you’re still missing the forest for the trees.

If you really want access to the data, then my suggestion is to learn how to scrape the data from the blockchain. Then you can have that “advantage” that you so desperately need.

Like it or not, blind voting will be around for a while.


I agree with @BlueZenith here. apart from the fact that anyone going into a project should always do own research based on more than just one source, we have blockchain explorers for a reason. It is not really requiring much of a skill-set to get onchain data, I mean if at all it is getting used to the process and making usage of filters. It is just experience that you can gain super fast. It is easy to aggregate and get used to using the same filters to get quite reliable results and an understanding.

On the other side I am personally not even a fan of airdrops, as for the most part in a bigger level perspective it does not add too much to the real utility and is mostly just a marketing mechanism. But one that should not be prevented as it is userfriendly and gives traction. I mean to some degree incentivized airdrops are nothing more than a like and retweet campaign on twitter with some prizedraw.

I get anyone that does not like such things and it is good to question the leverage and the intent, but then again… let the people play.

1 Like

After much discussion with the community, and sifting through the forum for feedback, we have landed on a few items which we believe we will pursue going into round 4 of LFG.

These include:

  1. Continuing Blind voting: This was overwhelmingly well received in the Discord, on the forum, and on Twitter. The majority of people praised the discussions it spurred and the excitement it continued to generate throughout the vote. Because of this, we have decided to continue trialing blind voting for subsequent LFG votes, and highly recommend them for other vote types as well.
  • People were not, however, receptive to the timer. The majority did not like the idea as they felt it was artificially trying to compel behaviors. Those who tended to be ok with it had ideas they thought accomplished what it wanted to do, but better. Because of that, we have decided to stall any use of the timer for the immediate next few votes and can return to it at some point in the future.
  1. A stronger notification system: While we attained a great vote turnout, there were still instances of people who said they were not aware a vote was taking place. Turnout is of the utmost importance to the CWG and the DAO. Therefore, we will pursue a multi-pronged strategy which includes a greater focus on the JUP DAO twitter, and potentially email or mobile alerts down the line.
  • One of the unfortunate things that happened this round was that the DAO twitter was shadowbanned for a 7 day period, making us unable to tweet out vote content or reminders every day. Since then, the account has grown by 6,000 followers and has not been shadowbanned since.

  • Additionally, we have been informed that email alerts may be possible as long as we don’t tie them to a wallet address. This means that we have a very direct system to alert people to vote if it pans out.

  1. Small site changes like rewording the Call To Action on the actual vote page from “View Discussion” to “View Full Proposal”. Adding a voting power column to the data. Clearer indications that any airdrop claim is a bonus, using clearer verbage even potentially the word ‘bonus’ itself.

  2. Putting out stronger comms around new things. For example, there was a lot of information around Meteora’s Alpha Vault, but it had to be sought out. There was a medium article, for example, but there was no 1 pager with a tldr. This is something we will seek to be more mindful of going forward with the team.

  3. Better guidelines on Discord or the Forum to prevent extreme harassment of candidates. This could involve talking with mods to create and enforce more hard guidelines or collaborating with the catdet groups. Something we never want to do is clamp down on speech that is sincere or truthful. However, there have been instances where individuals have spent days harassing individuals without evidence inside and outside of the Discord. We think covering the outer limits of these things is not a bad idea, while making sure to not infringe on anyone. A simple rule could be “severe accusations demand severe evidence” and “refusal to provide evidence with continued accusations could lead to a time out”.

In addition something we would like to explore in the long term involves:

  1. Some sort of survey apparatus, whether it exists at the vote’s end or somewhere else to collect data from users such as “where do you get your information from when you vote?”. It is in this way that we can draw insights on the voterbase at large.

This is a great response to the feedback! The blind vote does matter a lot. If people are voting just for the sake of it, their is a probability that it will be evenly skewed across all the options rather than to the most popular. Love your work Slorg !


Pleased that majority of the key changes suggested by community were actually implemented to start with. It shows the CWG listens to and tries to incorporate feedbacks from the community.
I didn’t like the blind voting idea but surprisingly noticed that it isn’t that bad. I didn’t need to rethink my vote over & over again as voting went on as I didn’t know the outcome. Just voted & that was it & was looking forward to the outcome being announced.
Don’t like the idea of vote timer.
I have heard people suggesting that these votes run for longer. Don’t think it’s a good idea at all as 72hrs+ for voting is already too much. Can’t understand how you wouldn’t find a minute to vote in 72hrs if you are keen to & really want to vote on something that has been discussed and presented for weeks before voting date on all major social media platforms over & over again. DAO needs to act swiftly so stakeholders can carry on work with their projects we decide on. So I will suggest the duration for voting stays the same.