LFG Retrospective & Feedback

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

A retrospective:

  1. Over 180,000 people participated: Although some were duplicate wallets used to vote for multiple candidates, there was no strong incentive to sybil because of how the rewards were designed.

  2. Reward breakdown: You receive the same rewards no matter who you vote for. Rewards are only based on your voting weight.

All 6 projects benefitted substantially:

  • Uprock gained hundreds of thousands of users after being introduced

  • Both Sharky and Zeus each gained over 30,000 twitter followers

  • Projects were able to refine their messaging and approach based on community feedback and the AMAs

As we transition into round 2, let’s recap the application process:

  1. The project initially posts on the jupresearch forum under ‘LFG Introductions’.

  2. Candidates are selected by the CWG based on multiple criteria: community sentiment, TGE date, legitimate forum activity, vision, etc

  3. Candidates are given multiple AMAs and other opportunities to explore their product & vision with the DAO.

  4. All information is compiled along with a tokenomics breakdown, and the DAO selects their preferred candidate. The top 2 get to launch.

Although the first round was a success across several metrics, we still have a few things to figure out:

  1. How do we handle the one’s who didn’t launch: Do they progress to the 2nd round automatically? Do they all start back at the forum?

  2. What do we do in the event that there aren’t 6 viable candidates?

  3. How do we re-introduce candidates who were in prior rounds and already had AMAs

  4. Were there any parts the DAO didn’t like or felt could be better?

We will use this post to source feedback on the LFG Process. If you have anything you liked or felt could be improved, please post below:


I’m response to the first three questions:

  1. I believe they should be given the opportunity to reuse or edit, edit a new proposal, intro, etc…But essentially start back at the forum.

  2. Maybe set a minimum of 3 candidates (pick 1 winner & min 5 candidates to pick 2)

  3. Reuse previous material if still applicable to the project, as described. Or allow. for a fresh batch of new media.

  4. Not that haven’t already been addressed here.

Thanks Slorg!:handshake:


Hey Slorg, resharing my opinion from a recent Twitter post regarding the process:

"This entire process has been so interesting to watch. First & foremost I found it most interesting in the way voters drastically shifted their sentiment over the duration of the campaign as outlined here - https://x.com/fknmarqu/status/1765988391353508168?s=20… By way of the first few rounds of interviews with candidates & the selection process, you’d assume there would have been a much closer vote. However, the numbers drastically sway in favor of Zues Network with a consistent uptick of votes over the entire duration of the voting period while others gradually lost momentum. I think this could potentially be a result of herd instinct due to the results being actively displayed of who is currently winning the vote. Not to discredit Zues Network & the amazing work that they’re doing of course! Psychologically voters wouldn’t see a point in voting for others after X amount of time when the majority of votes are swayed so heavily in favor of the other two candidates. This is what I believe caused the plateau in voting & so heavily shifted the voting in favor of the two candidates after the winners became obvious.

Is there the potential to mask results until the voting period is over in order to mitigate this? I think a test run would work well to see if I’m correct in this assumption & create an ultimate sense of fairness amongst these voting turnouts. While voters being swayed by Discord & X opinions is hard to stop, small things like this can be a major factor & I see it as an issue even with DAO proposals. People eventually lose the idea to vote based on their own ideals & just choose based on what the crowd favors.

  1. I think projects that didn’t launch should be put through a retrospect by the community & a vote for the top two projects out of the four proceeds to the next round automatically. If a project follows this process 3x then they have a cool off period before they can submit again.

  2. Allow the community to select from their favorites from a previous round that didn’t make it

  3. Have them reintroduce updates of their offerings, what they learned in the process & how they believe their product/service is better suited now than before to meet the needs of the JUP community. Each project should be given a retrospect by the community to understand where & how they could improve their offering to suit the DAO.

  4. The ability to see the leading votes, it creates herd mentality & prevents independent voting after a clear winner becomes obvious


Everything was great :+1:t4: overall. The process, voting, locking, and stats after voting :ballot_box: I appreciate if you didn’t vote for the overall winner you will still receive rewards I was afraid if I didn’t vote for the winner I wouldn’t receive benefits. :exploding_head: changed my whole voting way. Keep up the great work team :fire::clap::clap::clap::clap:


That is actually the case!

You get rewards even for not choosing the winner, just for voting.


This is a great idea imo.


I think this may have been the case with a lot of people, adds to my point about being able to see who is winning swaying the opinions of voters


Hoping we can see some aspects of it implemented!


There’s really not much more to add here, other than that I think that there should be a permanent fixture (iframe) on jup.ag letting people know in which phase we’re in right now - is a vote starting in a few days, are we discussing/collecting feedback, etc, to get more people into governance.

The banner should be more persistent, all the time, so people can know which days the voting is, at all times.


My response is essentially entirely in agreement with everything that VontariusF outlines above that I didn’t think it worth repeating the same points other than I also felt the key recommendations would be:

  • Hide the vote results to either the end, or at least only reveal it to the voter after they cast their vote. I think a lot of people voting late will see any vote against the leading top 2 as wasted unless the third position is very close behind (which wasn’t the case in this round). I also think that hiding or delaying the reveal of the leaders will help minimize the voters misguided thinking that they need to vote for the winner to earn benefits (LFG points, winner airdrops, etc.)

  • Projects that lost should have the chance to be in a future voting round, but i wouldn’t make it automatic. They should go back and compete against all the new entrants, albeit their AMA can be highlights of the first AMA with opportunity to provide updates that have happened since then.


Re-rolling the runner-ups into further rounds - here we can run into a few problems, but easily managed;

  1. “The Dud-project” – so over time, the chance increases of nominating a not so great project that simply doesn’t get a pass through. With limited slots each round, the end result here is that it leads to clogging reservation of all candidate slots of a round with poor projects, whilst better projects wait their turn to get one slot at a time while the 5 other slots remain clogged with accumulated ‘duds’.

My suggestion:
Give runner-ups a second chance draw, and the project can nominated when to re-apply (round selection). In addition, each project only gets 2 chances.

This also prevents the highly unlikely yet possible gaming of marketing value by reslotting into 3rd or 4th place over and over. And, the runner-up projects gain a better chance for the final attemp by having the option to time there second attempt.

Limited Candidates <6
My suggestion:
Have rounds fixed to set time intervals with condition of 6 applicants. If under 6 applicants at the time of next round, trigger a tempory extension of 1-2 weeks. At which, if no more applicants slot in, then run the vote with reduced applicants. If the number of total applicants reaches fewer than 4, then for that vote only 1 project will make it through.

Reintroducing Candidates for second lfg process
My suggestion:
Here I don’t think any change is needed. The projects can choose to highlight different aspects or updates with the ama time, or reverberate the same content which would be exposed to new JUP users that have joined after prior round. As with my suggestion above on what to do with second chance voting, here the projects can choose a time at a later date to jump into their final round; in this way it would make sense to continue the same introduction process and stage time as normal.

Improvement Feedback
So there was split views on the use of bribes/gratuities for votes to a specific project. Personally I think bribes is absolutely fine if only people can get passed the associated sentiment of ‘corruption’ that comes with it. Objectively it is no different than an airdrop for doing tweets or swaps – project is rewarding a desired behavior that will help the project. So there is no difference with offering additional rewards to JUP voters to support their project.

I would actually prefer projects bribed voters more – because that provides some insight as to how much does the project have in resources that its willing to commit to exchange launches. Once again, objectively this is the same as say; paying binance a listing fee; only bribing dao voters is the decentralized form of it for dex’s. Curve finance has been doing bribes for years with their emissions to different LP’s. The mutual exchange of reward for voting support is not the issue, and it would be controdictory to say so considering there is allocations already for voting. But the issue is mostly Psychological – that is, peoples “feelings” about the word “bribe”. I think we should encourage it, and simple call it “Gratuities” instead.

  1. A. Not being chosen (1st or 2nd position, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good or viable or whatever project. Just that the first two were chosen as winners.
    B. 3rd and 4th could automatically move to next round (qualified without any other work, etc), 1 non-consecutive time. (e.g. 1st Round, 3rd Positioner “XC” qualifies automatically for 2nd round, but after 2nd round results having “XC” as either 3rd or 4th, moves him back to forum, AMAs, video, etc. If all good for “XC” and enters 3rd round, if resulting in either 3rd or 4th, he qualifies for 4th round again (1 non-consecutive time).
    C. tldr: Previous round’s 3rd and 4th qualify automatically for only the next round.
    D. If for 3 consecutive rounds, hasn’t achieved 3rd-4th position, it’s entry for 2 next rounds, pauses. (skips 2 next rounds)
    E. If for 4 consecutive rounds, hasn’t passed, it’s entry for 1 next round, pauses. (skip 1 next round)
  2. Above or similar system with pausings (skips) will definitely shorten the possible candidates for x (e.g #5) round. More possible candidates being ready, or a possibility that only 5 candidates can be there once in like 5 rounds. So, if R#1 are Candidates01, C02, C03, C04, C05, C06, Round#2 there are C03, C04, C07, C08, C05, C06, R#3: C07, C08, C09, C10, C05, C06, then R#4: C09, C10, C11, C12, C13, with just 5 candidates, as C05 & C06 skipped this one and will skip the next one. But R#5 till R#9 will need 6 candidates again. Because of this, R#5 could be quite problematic, as there are already two out, and possibly another one due to 1D or 1E as above.
  3. Using the above method, Being 5th or 6th is not a shame, nor being in 2 rounds and not having won one. It just happened to not be chosen - voted. Possible introduction as: “Previous LFG candidate XV2” with full LFG voting bio (“R01 5th, R02 3rd, R03 5th”) [which would mean autoqualified for previous 3rd Round]
  4. A dashboard embeded in (vote).jupag with all previous Rounds easily implemented in one section is needed. There are now 2 closed - previous votes. Soon, there will be 4, then 10, and someone won’t easily track a candidates history, etc.
    Though, not all info should be easily seen so as not to trigger pity votes. e.g. (XVC is in 2 consecutive rounds not in 3rd-4th place, for example ended 6th, then 5th and new Round is open. There shouldn’t be a notification that if it doesn’t achieve 3rd-4th it will skip 2 round after this one. This “notification” should be on, only after the round ends and results come up, etc)

Thanks Slorg,

  1. How do we handle the one’s who didn’t launch: Do they progress to the 2nd round automatically? Do they all start back at the forum?
  • Perhaps we should do a podium. So top 2 launches but 3rd place will get to progress into next round automatically.
  1. What do we do in the event that there aren’t 6 viable candidates?

Hard to predict but suppose just have to put through 6 anyways for the community to decide on

  1. How do we re-introduce candidates who were in prior rounds and already had AMAs

I think we should treat them as same for re-introduction, gives opportunity for community to learn more about them or refresh on who they are. Give AMA so community can ask more Qs

  1. Were there any parts the DAO didn’t like or felt could be better?

Can we have ability to link multiple wallets that we voted on. That way we have better data points but also so that we can split our vote rather than just one. As there will be cases where we believe and want to vote on more than one project to support them.



Agree with this suggestion actually. Masking the voting results could be fairer and influence voter psychology to vote more proactively. I will bring this point up in the townhall tomorrow for us to revisit this.


We are getting emails from jup about our accounts why not get updates on when the vote opens including links to the projects and some descriptions?


very logical and systematic approach. Anonymous voting is definitely required for this.


Agree with masking the results too. Like elections they won’t reveal / count till after voting is over. Great idea!


In my opinion or suggestion is to lower down the numbers of candidates per voting process. Announcing the candidates like 5 days ahead of voting (Mon-Fri) reduce the voting timeline for 2 days, like during the weekends.

1 Like

Consider a minimum percentage threshold of the vote for automatic re-entry?
Is 2% of the vote an outright rejection by the community?


Hey Slorg. I’m going to answer these questions of yours, but first I want to say that you guys are killing it and we are all proud of the work you and everyone else have been doing.

First question, I feel like they should re-submit and fix any and all issues people had with their initial submission that’d make it make it worthwhile for those who have dissenting opinions of their token. i.e. tokenomics and etc.

Second question, Perhaps a 3-submission limit shall be set in place to make the choices more substantial.

Third question, no need to re-introduce. Have them submit and be voted upon based on the suggestions in my answer to question number one.

Fourth question, I feel like community members should be less harsh to those who are being voted on. I’ve seen some terrible behavior from many people in the #lfg-candidates channel in the discord.

Keep up the good work my man.