Proposal: Jupiter DAO Monitoring Working Group

Jupiter DAO Governance Monitoring Working Group


The JUPDAO Monitoring Working Group aims to enhance transparency and decentralization in JUPDAO by creating a governance dashboard. This tool will simplify complex governance data into clear insights, promoting informed decision-making and active participation. Emphasizing the principle that “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it,” It will feature analytics on voting patterns, participation rates, voting power distribution, unstaking trends, and proposal dynamics. Additionally, the dashboard will include mechanisms to identify and alert suspect voting behaviors, offering insights into potential initiatives to mitigate these issues.


Recent proposals have highlighted opportunities to enhance the understanding and oversight of voting behaviors within JUPDAO. These enhancements are essential for fostering transparency and decentralization in governance. To address these opportunities, it is crucial to equip the community with tools that facilitate detailed insights into governance activities. This proposal aims to empower JUPDAO members by providing clear and accessible data on governance actions, thereby encouraging more engaged and informed participation. Furthermore, the ability to monitor and analyze voting patterns is key to upholding the integrity and fairness of the DAO’s governance processes.


  1. Improve Transparency: provide governance data accessibility that are crucial for the DAO to measure its progress toward the DAO’s objective.
  2. Increase Informed Participation: Break down complex governance data into simpler formats, making it easier for community members to understand and participate effectively.
  3. Detect and Address Anomalies: Implement analytical tools to spot unusual voting patterns or behaviors that may suggest unfair influence, ensuring the integrity of the governance process.
  4. Measure and Promote Decentralization: Help monitor key metrics on JUPDAO to benchmark its decentralization and robustness of the DAO.


  1. Build and Maintain the JUP DAO Governance Dashboard: Develop and maintain the dashboard functionality for displaying key governance data and analytics.
  2. Enhance Monitoring Tools: Continuously refine monitoring tools and procedures based on community input and the changing needs of the DAO.
  3. Analyze Data and Provide Reports: Conduct monthly analysis of governance data to identify significant trends or potential issues and report these findings to the community.


  1. Build Trust and Confidence: The transparency provided by the dashboard will help increase community trust and confidence in the fairness of the governance processes.
  2. Boost Engagement Levels: With more understandable and accessible information, more community members might feel encouraged to participate in governance, leading to higher involvement and varied perspectives.
  3. Safeguard Against Governance Attack: The ability to quickly spot and react to suspect voting behaviors will protect the DAO from potential manipulation, maintaining the authenticity and robustness of governance.
  4. Facilitate Data-Driven Decisions: Having access to comprehensive analytics will allow the community to make better-informed decisions on proposals and governance changes.

Team structure and roles

Varit - Governance Lead

Varit Ruangsiri: Blockchain professional with over six years of experience. Focusing on decentralized governance, DAO research, and business development across Web 3 industry.

  • Milestones and Metrics Grant Council at Optimism Collective: Evaluated and oversaw grant proposals and project milestones.
  • DAO Delegate: Actively involved in governance at Optimism, SafeDAO, 1inchDAO, Dydx DAO, and Arbitrum DAO.
  • DAO Researcher at leading VC in SEA: Specialized in researching decentralized autonomous organizations.

Englandzz- Governance Analyst

Experience in Blockchain Space: 4+ years specializing in cryptocurrency project analysis, with key roles in project management, community building, and business development.

  • DAO Delegate at Arbitrum: Engaged in governance and decision-making within Arbitrum.

Sosujung:- Product Manager

Experienced in blockchain-driven product development, including NFT infrastructure and DeFi analytic dashboards.

Kamin - Product Designer

3 years + experience in UX/UI design, worked on blockchain-related projects including games with zk-proof based Autonomous world concept, and governance dashboard, with the goal of improving product visual appeal and usability.

Bacon - Software Engineer

4+ years of experience in software development, with skills on smart contract development and maintaining blockchain infrastructure, including expertise in Axelar, Band Protocol, Forta, and Ethereum nodes. Expertise in data management, ensuring comprehensive proficiency in blockchain technologies.

Apemon - Data engineer

Over 5 years specializing in smart contract development and data indexing within the blockchain space.

About JUP Governance Dashboard

Metric Details

1. Holder Metrics

  • Total number of holder wallets.
  • Total token supply.
  • Votable supply (tokens in circulation that are eligible to vote).
  • Unstake JUP Overtime
  • Share of votable supply

2. Concentration of Voting Power Metrics

  • Nakamoto coefficient

  • Big Meow Holders Metrics:

    • Total Voting power from nonminority holders.
    • Number of tokens held by nonminority holders.
  • Small Meow Holder

    • Total Voting power from minority holders.
    • Number of tokens held by minority holders.
  • Voter Dominance:

    • Voting Power Distribution: Share of total voting power held within the top 5, top 10, top 25, top 50, top 75, and top 100 voters.

3. Proposal Metrics

  • Total number of proposals
  • Unique Proposers: Ratio of unique proposers to total proposals.
  • Proposal Outcome: Number of passed vs failed proposals.
  • Proposal Type: Distribution of proposals by type.
  • Voting Results of the Proposal: Classification of results as contentious, generally accepted, or normal.

4. Participation Metrics

  • Voter Turnout: Tracking each individual voter participation activeness, refers to their recent proposals participation, voting stats & history.
  • Voter Behavior: Voting behavior by voting time, Voting Momentum - Tendency to vote early or wait until the end.
  • Participation per Proposal: Number of voters and voting power cast per proposal.
  • Minority voters’ Participation: Percentage of minority voter tokens participating in governance, breakdowns of minority voters by participation
  • Non-Minority voters’ Participation: Percentage of minority voter tokens participating in governance, breakdowns of minority voters by participation

5. Voter’s Profile

  • Dedicated page for each voter, displaying all proposals they have voted or not voted on.
  • Rationale Vote: Tracking each voter whether they only vote or also provides a rationale & discussion for their vote, both on-chain and in forums.
  • Non-Conformity Ratio: Display the ratio of times a voter votes against the majority.
  • Voting Power Tracking: Tracking changes in the amount of voting power each voter.
  • Stake/Unstake history for each individual

Steps to Implement

1. Research & Ideation:
We started by identifying the metrics and gather community feedbacks

2. Design & Mockups:
Based on our research, we created initial design mockups focusing on user experience and the presentation of key metrics. These were shared with the community for initial feedback.

3. Development Phase 1:
We developed a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) featuring basic holder metrics and concentration of voting power metrics. This was released as a mid-development preview to gather community feedback.

4. Development Phase 2:
We integrated additional metrics based on community feedback, including more detailed proposal and participation metrics.

5. Testing & Iteration:
The dashboard underwent multiple rounds of testing for functionality, usability, and data accuracy. We also made iterative improvements based on ongoing community feedback.

6. Launch & Maintenance:
After final testing and refinements, the dashboard was officially launched. We have committed to maintaining it, including daily updates and feature iterations based on community needs.

7. Monthly Report:
Release of monthly governance analytics report.

The total budget cost is $100,000 USD for 4 months of the trial working group.

Cost breakdown

Development cost:

  • Detailed requirements for the DAO Governance analytics dashboard.
  • Development of an initial design concept.
  • Creation of mockup designs for the dashboard, including user interface and experience elements.

Infrastructure and maintenance costs

  • Data pipeline
  • Frontend-backend
  • Indexer
  • Domain hosting
  • Cloud provider cost

Monthly Report Cost:

The monthly report aims to bridge the gap between data collection and governance decision-making, ensuring that all members of the JUPDAO community are well-informed and equipped to participate actively and effectively in governance processes.


A couple of questions:

  1. Why does this initiative require the work of six people?
  2. How long would it take to have a minimally viable product available for the public to view?
  3. What is the breakdown of the $100k budget request with respect to: salaries (for development and reports, I assume) and infrastructure/maintenance?
  4. What has been the previous experience of the proposed team members in the Solana ecosystem?

As I stated in the previous thread, a governance dashboard is something that a lot of people would like to see, especially for the purposes of tracking voter metrics.

However, I do believe the community would like to see a prototype in action before committing such a substantial amount of financial resources. I would suggest a retrospective on one of the previous LFG measures (either Round 1 or 2) so the community can get a sense of how such a dashboard would work in practice. Without such, I don’t believe this will get much traction.


This is something that should probably be built and launched with the Realms team and developers/users who are deep in the Solana governance ecosystem.

1 Like

I think the idea of a governance dashboard is a good one and look forward to exploring the concept more as the discussion process moves forward. I’m definitely curious about a couple things though. Have you, or anyone in your team discussed this with Jup dev team? It seems to me something that could already be in their dev pipeline. Which leads me to the second question…is this meant to be a stand-alone, or is this something that should be integrated directly into the governance UI? Not sure if you’ve had any of those conversations or not.
So to continue. The budget and time frame? is this the time/funding requested for the development and launch of the dashboard? It didn’t seem to me you were requesting continued funding…some clarification would be nice.
So i guess two things about this…IF it’s something that should be a part of the Jupiter platform instead of a modular stand-alone, then what would that do to your proposal and/or development plan?
The second question i had is that it SEEMS to me that the majority of your proposal is about the development and construction of the dashboard, so why the WG? the proposal could just as easily been a project funding request or something. I understand that there are ongoing duties…the monthly reports…could go to an existing WG (don’t we have one who’s only job is to drop paper?)
Maintenance and upkeep could be an ongoing cost. but how much? I guess i’d like some more information on those potential ongoing costs and how it’s going to be handled.
so assuming your approved as the proposal is written, then will all 6 members be the WG going forward? If so, then you might have to work pretty hard to justify the expense…assuming all 6 would be drawing a stipend. If not, then who’s staying on?

So this is a bit of a sidetrack, but i had thoughts on the subject of compensation and funding proposals.
It seems there are tons of arbitrary costs that can’t really be helped. And then there is ‘team compensation’, which seems to vary a great deal. It might be beneficial to come up with a standardized stipend to disburse. Separated out by ‘technical’ and ‘non-technical’ So essentially those who write the code and design the architecture would be considered ‘technical’ and anything else would be ‘non-technical’ I know this isn’t really a non-profit…BUT most of the things we do are under the flag as ‘community engagement’ or ‘community building’ and success in those actions should be their own payment…if we were all saints lol.
I realize that development skills are essential and well paid…but if your doing it for the cause, then maybe bypass the thousands a month to each team and just take 50 bucks an hour, logged, or some reasonable number with a verification method.

I’m SO sorry for hijacking this last paragraph.

It’s clear to me that you are a professional and you brought your ‘A’ game. I for one, appreciate you bringing your skill and knowledge to our tiny colossus.

You said you have 6 years experience in decentralized governance? If you have time one day soon, I’d love to pick your brain on that subject. I’ve been working on some interesting concepts involving enhanced governance based on non financial metrics.

anywho…GREAT JOB!


Hey @BlueZenith Thank you for your thoughtful questions and suggestions. I appreciate your interest in ensuring that this project is both effective and efficient. Here are the answers to your questions:

The initiative requires a multidisciplinary team of six due to the complex nature of blockchain data analytics and the diverse skill sets needed for robust development and maintenance:

  • Varit (Governance Lead) and Englandzz (Governance Analyst) bring extensive experience in DAO governance, ensuring the dashboard aligns with community governance needs.
  • Sosujung (Product Manager) and Kamin (Product Designer) focus on product usability and user experience, critical for ensuring the dashboard is accessible and user-friendly.
  • Bacon (Software Engineer) and Apemon (Data Engineer) are essential for building and maintaining the sophisticated data infrastructure required for data processing and presentation.

We aim to have an MVP available for community feedback within the first two months of the project. This MVP will include all the metrics mentioned on the proposal.

  • Development Phase (2 Months): $80,000

  • Bacon (Software Engineer): $90/hour × 160 hours = $14,400

  • Apemon (Data Engineer): $90/hour × 160 hours = $14,400

  • Varit (Governance Lead): $70/hour × 171 hours = $11,970

  • Englandzz (Governance Analyst): $70/hour × 171 hours = $11,970

  • Sosujung (Product Manager): $65/hour × 186 hours = $12,090

  • Kamin (Product Designer): $55/hour × 181 hours = $9,955

  • Infrastructure & Setup Costs: $4,000

  • Contingency and On-demand Resources: $1,215 (cap amount for buffer)

This budget ensures full engagement of all team members, with compensation reflective of industry standards for their roles and expertise. Our focus is on developing a robust and user-friendly governance dashboard that effectively meets the needs of our community.

It’s important to note that funding for this phase will only be requested after the delivery of a fully functional product.

  • Monthly Reporting and Maintenance (2-month trial): $20,000

Following the development, we transition into a phase dedicated to maintaining the dashboard’s functionality and generating insightful monthly governance reports:

Monthly Allocation: $10,000 per month

  • Infrastructure Costs: $4,000 (Hosting, cloud services, data indexing)
  • Maintenance Labor Costs: $2,000
  • Report Preparation Costs: $2,500
  • Contingency and On-demand Resources: $1,500 (cap amount for buffer)

This detailed allocation ensures that our team efficiently manages and updates the dashboard based on community feedback, maintains its operational excellence, and prepares comprehensive monthly governance reports to foster transparency and informed decision-making within the community.

Our team has a wide-ranging expertise across various blockchain ecosystems, though our specific experience with Solana is limited. However, we have supported multiple DAOs by providing critical data to help inform decision-making. Through this work, we have identified JupiterDAO as a particularly promising entity that takes its governance seriously. While the fundamentals of decentralized governance and blockchain analytics share similarities across different blockchain platforms, we are confident in our ability to leverage our existing knowledge and adapt it effectively to enhance the JUPDAO Governance Dashboard.

Also, building a prototype for a data product like our proposed dashboard requires significant resources. However, we have already developed and deployed similar dashboards for Optimism and SafeDAO, which you can review. These examples demonstrate our capability to tailor metrics to suit different DAO environments. Adapting these successful models to JUPDAO involves substantial research and customization, which we have planned for in our development timeline.

Discussion with the JUP Dev Team:

We have not yet had direct discussions with the JUP dev team. We posted the idea in the forum (RFC JUP Dashboard) and reached out but have not received a response. We are very eager to collaborate with them to ensure our efforts complement any existing or planned developments.

Our initial plan was to develop the dashboard as a standalone tool to ensure swift updates and avoid dependencies. However, we are very open to integration if it aligns better with the JUP team and community’s preferences. We can adapt our approach to integrate seamlessly with the JUP governance website, aligning with the platform’s overall strategy and enhancing user experience.

Funding and Structure of the Proposal:

The funding requested is specifically for the initial four-month period, covering all necessary development, testing, deployment, and initial monitoring and reporting. We opted for establishing a working group rather than a one-time project funding due to the ongoing nature of DAO monitoring. This structure allows us to provide continuous insights, recommend improvements, and adapt to evolving governance needs—activities that a singular project might not sufficiently support.

We aim to foster a long-term relationship with the JUP DAO and its community. Establishing a working group dedicated to interpreting data and providing insights will enhance governance decisions and overall DAO efficacy.

Ongoing Costs and Maintenance:

Post-development, ongoing costs will primarily involve maintenance, updates, and incremental improvements. We have planned for these expenses within the initial budget. While all six members are compensated during the development phase to ensure robust delivery, the post-launch phase will focus more on maintenance and ongoing reporting. I, along with Varit, will primarily handle these responsibilities. Other team members will engage periodically for necessary updates and to develop new features, ensuring that expenses are justified by their direct contributions to the project’s success.

We are committed to transparency and adaptability in this process and appreciate the community’s involvement and feedback as we refine our approach. We believe this dashboard will be a crucial tool for enhancing governance and look forward to continuing this journey with your support.

Thank you once again for your engagement and support. I’m looking forward to bringing this project to life with your valuable inputs.

1 Like