Proposal: Vote Working Group - consolidate information about upcoming votes

JUP DAO Proposal

The Vote Working Group

Jupiter is a massive player on Solana and is continuing to grow. There are amazing people leading the way.

Emergent Need: As the JUP DAO has gotten underway with multiple votes, a glaring emergent need has formed. The vote proposals can be long and convoluted. People are incentivized to vote and want to vote yes to get rewards. Therefore, many do not spend the time to read what is in the proposal.

Proposal: We form a Vote Working Group.

Mission: For each proposal going to vote, we create a small one pager outline of the proposal. This can be distributed on all channels. Ideally, it would also be presented right on the voting page. The idea would be to stay objective with no dog in the fight other than letting the people know the pertinent information. Too often on some of the proposals, the relevant details are only understood after the majority have voted. We want everyone to understand before they vote. The group would essentially always be on call for any new votes coming up.

Structure: There would be 3 people in the working group to start. In addition, all lines of communication would be open in order to facilitate any vote concerns from the DAO. There would be a discord channel to talk about the upcoming one pager.

Funding: We are proposing a $6k monthly budget spread to the 3 people in the group. $2k per member. This would be a trial period of 4 months.

Thank you all for your time and we look forward to helping!


This task is already handled by the JUP core team, and I would say that in this instance its actually good to lean into what you’re alluding to as conflict of interest. I don’t see the conflict – team wants valuable workgroups as do we all, and the summaries are objective and fair. Example: Trial Budgets for the 3 new WGs! by Soju.

I don’t want you to feel discourage, but its important that we evaluate all proposals critically. Something many people are not considering, but really ought too – is factoring in the viability of AI tooling.

How I would approach the task/service that you’re proposing - is to simply copy/paste proposal threads into AI tool and ask it to ‘summarize and word more objectively’. That takes about 1 minute, and at current we’ve had 7 proposals total over 3 months.

I don’t think you need a team to do what your offering, or $6,000.-- rather rethink how to do things more efficiently.

There is an issue with casual voters not absorbing relevant information before the vote – but I don’t think adding more text-based content is going to alleviate the issue – no matter where it is placed. To understand the issue more – I would posture that we see casual voting because the process of voting itself is rather casual. Its a yes/no, 1-click and done. Some have suggested things like short-questionaries to filter casual voting, but I know that will only frustrate most people.

Would like you to review this thread here > Proposal: Gauge Voting w/ "DAO Treasury"
There is multiple ways to improve voter engagement, but overall I don’t believe a specific working group that generates more content is going to attract attention of casual voters who don’t really give their attention to existing content let alone additional.

Once again, don’t feel discouraged – this is just my opinion on your proposal. Thanks again for making the effort and considering how to tackle some of these issues. :pray:


Thanks for the response, but I completely disagree. The amount of people voting before reading any clear take on the proposal is massive. The salaries for the recent proposals that are about to go through are wild. There is no way people people know what they’re voting for. A post in discord does not solve this. You link a post for the budgets. How many people have seen that?

You talk about AI, but we’re giving out $66,000 to be on Reddit. What are we even doing here???

But somehow memes on Reddit is more important. Very discouraging that this is the attitude.

Voter engagement is not the issue. Once people understood that they can get rewards for voting - most people will just click yes. This is a broken system.

The salary amounts are subjective. I would ask, what are your time and energy worth?

As for people not knowing what they are voting for, that’s largely on them. The info is available if they care to make a little effort. There is a short synopsis of the measure on the voting page. If they’re not going to bother to read that, they definitely won’t read anything else. If people want to be lazy and uninformed, that’s their prerogative.

As for a one-pager outline, I’ve already done that for the last two measures (see example below). The real trick then becomes how to get that in front of as many people’s faces as possible. That’s currently a work in progress.

I think the issue primarily comes down to organization. Right now if you select the homepage on the forum there are a pile of posts that show up and it’s not real intuitive to find your way around the various topics we post about here. When i open the page i see LFG applications, Proposals, Guides and Questions all posted in one page. You can visit specific topics from the sidebar…but there is no proposal tab. I think a UI rework to make navigation easier would be a great first step.
The second is to set up web forms with specific formats and required fields. this way we can ensure required data would be present in the proposal and limit the space or opportunity to ramble. we can attach your original document with all it’s ramblings as an attachment. this way all the relevant info will be present in an easy to find and easy to read document. For those who want to dig deeper can check the appendices for more granular detail.
I do support a WG that would be in charge of organizing and ensuring the quality of documents posted here…not necessarily a ‘vote’ WG, because the issues you describe are present in nearly every document posted here. There are exceptions, but mostly you have to wade through a bunch of nothing to get to the point…and then sometimes you have to interpret it yourself… there is a form for LFG applications, but it’s more of a general guideline than a required format.
I know the CWG does most of the content modding here, but that seems like something that would almost be a full time job. Say one person full time for moderation and 2 temps to create assets.

idk, just my two cents.

Not sure why you find the forum so difficult to use. If you go to each category page, they are already sorted by new and unread posts.

Further, the tags work well

As does the search function. Anything I’ve ever needed to find pops up quickly.

Yes this is true, but you have not really demonstrated why your strategy here will be effective at remedying this. How do you get people to read your summery if the issue is that they don’t wish to absorb content?

Well speaking of reading proposals – the reddit costs are not purely for moderation and compiling information into reddit. It’s also marketing and growth, AMA’s and round the clock monitoring. Have you considered how much marketing firms charge for 1 month with basically influencers for endorsement? You’re looking at 20-30k/month on average and thats just for temporary marketing. The reddit content will populate search results on web – our discord, forum, X posts… not going to show up in search results. Anyway, not my position to defend the merits of that proposal, but I don’t think it is overpriced for what is being delivered and the value return on that. Put a price of inflow traffic of new users that would of otherwise not have known about Jupiter.

I think the kind of engagement is the issue – its complacent. But again, is what you’re offering here the solution to improving that? I’m not sure, I would say lean towards no, because the net change is adding more content and hoping people read it. Instead I would say the system itself needs updating to foster engagement directly in the voting process itself – this way you can’t skip it.

I shared an alternative voting system above, not sure what your thoughts are on that. You agree that the current system can be improved, so do take a look at and perhaps it may broaden your consideration on how we can encourage better quality engagement and consensus.


This is really nice :+1:
Short 1 minute videos would also be good

just throwing this out there for consideration, perhaps when someone connects their wallet and the option of how to vote is displayed, some short text above the vote options, reminding the voter that it is irrelevant how they vote to get their rewards as per the ASR, but they have to vote to collect them?