I recommend the recent Core Working Group vote not be included in staking rewards calculations, for several reasons:
Timing. The voting period coincided with a holiday weekend, anyone traveling to celebrate Easter with family who didn’t bring their ledger or device would have been unable to vote. Best in the future to avoid any possible rewards bias against religious groups. Longer voting periods would help with this as well.
Ambiguity. Even if the voting period had started earlier, it wasn’t clear what kind of feedback and accountability mechanisms there would be. After the community town hall, there was more of a sense for how things would work, but for people listening to it the next day, they had very little time left to vote. And the townhall was 3 hours long, a big ask for people to be informed before the voting period closed.
Perverse Incentives. Prior to this vote, LFG stakers were informed that they could be rewarded by voting for “winners.” I received anecdotal feedback that people were immediately voting Yes on the CWG vote thinking that’s how you get the most rewards. It’s probably worth an entirely separate discussion on how to incentivize informed voting rather than just spamming Yes to whatever they think is the most lucrative.
I believe the CWG will do a great job for this community, but including the CWG vote in rewards sets a bad precedent.
Timing. The voting period coincided with a holiday weekend, anyone traveling to celebrate Easter with family who didn’t bring their ledger or device would have been unable to vote. Best in the future to avoid any possible rewards bias against religious groups. Longer voting periods would help with this as well.
This is somewhat of a slippery slope there are over 10,000 religions across the world. That’s more religions than days in the year. I don’t see it as plausible feat to be inclusive to every religious holiday and if we were only inclusive to certain religions I don’t believe that would be a good look.
Perverse Incentives. Prior to this vote, LFG stakers were informed that they could be rewarded by voting for “winners.” I received anecdotal feedback that people were immediately voting Yes on the CWG vote thinking that’s how you get the most rewards. It’s probably worth an entirely separate discussion on how to incentivize informed voting rather than just spamming Yes to whatever they think is the most lucrative.
Do you have a link/timestamp to the call where that was said? I personally didn’t hear that and the first time I’ve heard of that. I did see people give anecdotes about people not reading and voting yes, but I was unaware of a potential bribe claim.
Overall I disagree with the idea of cutting ASR rewards, but would love to see this go for a vote if only so people who missed out and the community in general would have an additional oppurtunity for more ASR reward. I asked in the discord and they said if someone missed a vote they would not be punished beyond not getting asr reward for that specific vote.
Hey, thanks for this honest feedback and take – can you share with me more details on where this occured? We need to do better on communicating this accurately, and will do so
I don’t remember seeing or hearing this anywhere. In order to make a statement like that you need to be able to cite the source.
I agree the timing over a holiday weekend was a poor choice but I don’t think that’s reason enough to exclude this proposal. So far, all votes have been for 72 hours. Seems to be a sufficient amount of time. Roughly 200M out of 268M potential votes (~75%) were cast. That’s a pretty good turnout.
Appreciate your feedback, it’s a tough undertaking to not conflict with major holidays, especially when “major” is so subjective. A longer voting period that includes several weekddays and a weekend would resolve this.
As far as rewards, I think offering an alternative and counting either as meeting the requirements would be an even better solution. Missing out on a portion of rewards definitely feels like a punishment to some.
Not for this specific vote, but weren’t there candidates in LFG votes that offered incentives for voting for them?
That gave some the impression that voting for winners has benefits. Not saying it is Jupiter’s fault, but there are a lot of misconceptions, and hard to dispel them in a short period over a holiday weekend.
Appreciate your feedback, it’s a tough undertaking to not conflict with major holidays, especially when “major” is so subjective. A longer voting period that includes several weekddays and a weekend would resolve this.
I think a longer voting period is reasonable, but would need be done as a seperate proposal.
As for your point about Perverse Incentives, your post is about the CWG vote not the LFG candidates. With proposals you need to be clear and cohesive. Making a statement and mixing up two seperate entities like that is very irresponsible imo. Before making a statement with conviction on a proposal you should thouroughly verify the claims.
In it’s current state you should consider rewritting the entire proposal as I do not think it’s possible to have it go to a vote, given the innacuracies and lack of cohesion.
Also my recomendation for you in the future would be to title any initial proposal document as a draft, my reason being that you have limited time to edit post and you can’t delete them either, so if you were to make another post with the same or simmilar title it would draw confusion.
regarding holiday timing… i guess we, as participants, have to consider that the DAO is global and encompasses all cultures and holidays. know what im getting at? you cannot expect everyone to observe your holidays… right?
Thanks again for taking the time to provide more feedback. I named them individually in point 3, but from the perspective of stakers it is hard to tell the difference. That’s why I said it merited a separate discussion. Sounds like we agree there.
i think at the very least, a proposal like this should have started with the specific compensation details, before moving on to the detailed breakdown of context and function. many people either won’t read proposals all the way through or won’t read at all, so for a proposal involving a compensation package with millions on the line, concisely highlighting details it at the very start of the proposal should be the standard
before more discussion unraveled on twitter regarding the vested JUP supply in question, the proposal seemed to be loosely referred to on the timeline as whether to fund the CWG. it goes without saying everyone should read what they’re voting on, but many won’t, and those that do may not make it to the bottom of the detailed breakdown that actually gets to the part that most concerns them
i don’t know how i feel about excluding the recent vote so i won’t comment on that, BUT i do think this raises an incredibly important discussion for proposals moving forward to make sure transparency is maintained.
Any excuse can be given for a vote not to count. If Jup wants to consider what everyone is doing in different parts of the world for example making sure it’s not Easter holiday, Ramadan, Buddha feast, traditional holidays in Africa etc, nothing will be done. That can’t be used as a reason to invalidate a vote.
In every elections all over the world, whether we like it or not people make a case why others should vote for or against etc. CWG made their case in a proposal & further organised town halls etc and we all are free after reading that to make a choice or abstain. Every choice is valid and should be respected.
If someone anecdotally mentioned that if they vote for or against they will be given some rewards, that in its very nature changes nothing as no matter what vote you cast, you still receive jup rewards to the best of my best understanding except you are suggesting someone from CWG promised to give someone extra tokens directly to vote for which hasn’t been proven. Even if that happened, there should be some process internally to discipline that CWG member but you stated this is anecdotal so it’s likely not true until we see evidence. Also during the first DAO launchpad votes that Shacky & Zeus won it was made clear before in several cadets calls, YouTube videos, Q&A, on X etc by project leaders that no matter who you vote for, everyone still receives airdrops from the winners. This has been proven as for example those who didn’t vote for Zeus have been allocated airdrop. So that’s misinformation by these anecdotal informant. If we listen to and follow what’s being said, all these will be avoided.
I find all the reasons you’ve given here bizarre to be considered to invalidate a DAO vote. Everyone must try & make time to vote. If you can’t, just pass on it and respect others vote. A vote can’t be valid only when certain holiday makers, DAO members in a certain country, religion etc are involved or not.
1. Disagreed on timing as we had a large turnout of voters, this turnout would be lower had timing been an issue.
2. Agreed on ambiguity.
3. Agreed on perverse incentives, this comes to my mind every time I vote on LFG
Would I be penalised for voting against someone that could end up being a significant decision maker in the future?
Would I get more tokens from LFG winners or proposal winners?
These points play into ambiguity too, i.e. we knew Zeus would give JUP stakers an airdrop, but we didn’t realise rewards were capped at 20k JUP staked and didn’t know they were tiered unlike linear vesting of LFG’s 0.75% allocation of Zeus.
Yes, Banx offered a bribe if you voted for them. If some people got the impression that they needed to pick the winner to receive anything extra, that’s on them (what is it they say about making assumptions?). There was plenty of communication stating otherwise. And this goes back almost a month to the LFG Round #1 vote so it wasn’t just over the holiday period.
The real issue is that some people just can’t be bothered to do their own due diligence and want their hand held. This is crypto where you have a lot more freedom but also a lot more responsibility. The info was out there to be found pretty easily. People need to be willing to do the work to find it.
