Proposed revision of current selection/voting system

Now that the voting is over I feel it’s okay to bring up some things without it affecting the votes, or anyone thinking this is a promotion for a project or a community member speaking against them.

  1. Sustainable LFG Candidates: I think the first set of candidates were great but going forward if a building project is applying to use the launchpad we should make sure that they have a product that is ALREADY making money. This is to protect Jupiter community members in the long run. Only projects that have provably made money from their products are sustainable.

  2. Products for Social/Environmental good: I was ignorant about Scrful until another catdet mentioned it in chat a day to the voting. While it is my fault for not reading up their docs, after examining them I did not think they should be on that poll with the others. I think going forward if it is a product that is clearly for social good they should be moved straight to the launchpad. As long as their tokenomics reflect this. Yes they should be scrutinized thoroughly, no something that for example rewards people that use renewable energy sources/ fight climate change should not be up for votes.

  3. Memes: We all love the memes. The first meme project to apply to the launchpad was really good, but they could never win against a project that is funded or has a lot of money to spare. Going forward I think that we should have a separate section/day for meme tokens. We could take a larger percentage of their tokens than we do for regular projects but I think this is a fair method. We want the next $WIF and $BONK to come from our launchpad, but those wouldn’t have survived if they were pitted against made projects so early in their life cycles.

Sorry it’s so long, forgot cats don’t like to read.
What do you guys think?



I like this.

Especially the second. Projects for social good/ climate.

But should have a separate launchpad as they will never survive a vote against hard money/greed plays but they are equally important to nurture.

It will attract a growing large audience of supporters to the ecosystem. So it’s very good for everyone. Last stats think show like 3 of 4 people concerned and care about climate change/planet now.


Well-said! So are you proposing that the LFG Launchpad Voting system have like two different sort of “sections”? AKA one section being the main launchpad from which verified and authentic teams move foward with their token (that have a working product), and one being more “degen” for like meme-coins and such but won’t be under such strict scrutiny regarding their tokenomics and stuff?


In theory, I agree, but I think the criteria fro judging what is classed as social/environmental good is too subjective.

First, whilst I’m not denying climate change, it’s a controversial subject and there is a lot of misinformation. Unless you’re a real expert, or employed as a full-time researcher, it’s unlikely you’re going to be able to disseminate fact from fiction… we’re probably going to rely on some community think-tank, or whatever, so it’ll be inconsistent and open to manipulation if bad actors get in.

And then there is just the issue that the ethics of it are too large for us to even argue whether something is ‘good’, if we can even settle on a definition for what ‘good’ is.

i.e. recycling seems like an excellent idea on the surface, but in practice it’s arguably more damaging to the environment (thinking about the extra industries, infrastructure, vehicles, fuels, spoiled items that go to landfill etc.) than just burning or burying everything.

Carbon offsetting is another excellent idea, but it’s taken advantage of by businessmen. We need to ensure that the money being paid to offset the carbon is actually being spent on something that has a long-term carbon-negative impact, not just plant some fast-growing trees or donate it to a government initiative or whatever… and that requires a watchdog, because we need to ensure the standards are enforced over time and not just when the token launches.

Not impossible… but I think better implemented as a third-party service (maybe by a community-operated DAO), not the responsibility of the launchpad itself.

Perhaps, though, it would be good to work out a way to allocate funding… perhaps from a % of the token rewards, to fund an ethics-oriented R&D department.

By now I don’t really know what I’m talking about… supporting good things is a good idea, just seems like there would be lots of moral dilemmas, so its safer not to centralise the decision-making.


i completely agree that I would like to see continues promotion of companies and projects that have traction. I was please to see Sharky in the top 2 because they clearly had traction. I worry about projects like Zeus that are capturing a big narrative (bringing Bitcoin ecosystem to other blockchains) but it seemed to mostly have social media buzz and social metrics traction (e.g., twitter followers) rather than real users that some of the other projects have (e.g., MonkeyDex).

I don’t like the idea of funding projects that come to JUP with a list of social media metrics but without users and customers. This gets me to where I disagree with you about your recommendation that products for Social/Envionmental “good” should be greenlighted to the launchpad without going through the voting process. I think that would lead to the terrible scamming and greenwashing that the stock market experienced with a bunch of DEI/ESG grifters doing cash grabs playing off the well wishes and hopes of the investors who in the end lost money and saw no progress. I think all projects should stand on their own merits and go through the DAO voting process. Any routes put in place to circumvent the voting process will absolutely lead to exploiters and grifters gaming the system.


Fun ideas, but I dont see them being feasible.

  1. Why block new upcoming projects to use LFG? Setting up limits like this defeats the purpose of a open application to launch process. Protecting Jupiter community members, is what people do when deciding on what to vote on. We provide a lot of content around candidates so that people can make a qualified decision upon voting.

  2. I do not see LFG launchpad being a charity project. Nor should we decide which project has a social good impact, as it instantly becomes political.

  3. We have the “meme madness” concept discussed in the in-Discord forum!

  1. I said nothing about blocking projects, but only allowing projects with a working product that makes money already to get on the ballot. People vote according to their greed today but when the bull market is done or when the project inevitably fails because it’s unsustainable they’ll say that JUP launchpad pushes rugs. I can give you a list of launchpads that now have this reputation.

  2. Supporting one social good project in 2/3 months doesn’t make you a charity project. That is a ridiculous statement. Some DAOs already have this, they still do good business. Plus LFG still gets their .75%. It’s not charity.

  3. It’s good that this is being discussed. Let’s discover the next BONK and WIF.

I disagree - obviously not all projects are geared towards generating revenue, and also keep in mind that its called a launchpad for a reason; these are startups trying to get traction and to gate the opportunity behind making money is rather predatory and dismissive towards other aspects of merit and value.

As a DAO – how do we find consensus on what projects fall under the category of public goods, or even the definition of public goods itself? The example given here is sustainable energy, fighting climate change with renewables; but these directions themselves are highly contested and controversial; it is incredibly presumptuous to bypass voting rights of community to green light a project through to launchpad purely because it serves preferential causes. It is because they’re preferential, that we have a voting process – and regardless of serving the environment or not, this isn’t a socialist justification to put aside the value of free thinkers in a capitalistic world. Lets not get political – but I don’t actually support renewable energy efforts, I think we’re fine with nuclear until fusion is better achieved. People think - Solar windmill = good… but not realized the carbon footprint of making the dam thing, transporting it and maintaining it. Anyone – big fat no here for automatic pass into launchpad for some projects on the basis of subjective preferences, that is why we have voting; to find consensus over subjective preference.

So SHIB and DOGE are top 10 coins – the larger being a project that was not funded or had any money behind it. Yes, very much exceptions to the rule – but I don’t suspect we would get many memecoins applying for launchpad; that actually onboards vesting schedules and allocations ect which is not typical of good memecoins. I can’t see a benefit to future memecoins actually going through the LFG process as opposed to airdropping and renouncing ownership w/ LP. I would instead suggest that memecoins are excluded from launchpad voting entirely (keep the exclusivity of WEN), and they can instead airdrop and distribute how they wish like most memecoins do.


They should all be under scrutiny before getting exposed to JUP users
But memes should be allowed to breathe without facing those guys
Also no working/money earning product should be = no LFG platform
On social goods the DAO can vote yes or no.

I think you have raised valid points here:

On social goods the DAO can vote yes or no. This is after they go through all the regular introduction, AMA and other important processes.

I do agree with you. I think focusing on projects with longevity and actually have a chance to grow longterm is key. We shouldn’t just think of those short term “meta hype” kind of plays.

1 Like

Honestly I’m just happy to see people discussing topics related to social good and the environment :earth_africa:

Vs pretending or saying these things don’t matter. As these issues affect us and those around us and those after us (think of the children lol).

Whether this is the best place for driving change in those areas is a question. I think personally… “why not?”. Why not try to direct capital and/or attention to meaningful themes.

1 Like

Thanks for starting this discussion. After reading your post as well as the replies, I want to pitch in too.

I disagree with you on this since the purpose of the Launchpad (as it says in the name) is to take off.

In startups it’s also more often the case than not that they don’t make any money / revenue. Instead, they need the money to even properly start.

The investors still make a lot of money off of them since 1/10 project becomes a unicorn regardless if all the others fail.

That being said we do not have to “protect” investors from opportunities that are thoroughly vetted by the CWG.

I do see your point, however, that we should carefully assess the potential of the projects.

As others already mentioned, deciding on what is social/envrionmentally positiv is an entire topic on its own. Also, even if one is a researcher in said area, the evidence is not conclusive on many things (random example: the impact of paper cups vs. reusable cups for coffee to go).

Nevertheless, it’s certainly worth mentioning if a project’s sole purpose is to save the world.

I like that idea. But how many successful memecoins needed a launchpad? Memecoins are usually good to go without it, no?

But maybe it could be a sign of quality if a meme coin launched on LFG.

1 Like

I agree with the comments about the overall ideas being good but the problems with execution and perspective on what is beneficial creating grey areas. I think maybe a fixed process for each project of going through a centralised sifting stage then voting through community and a clear banning system to permanently ban scammers and linked accounts from ever being able too propose or access the ecosystem. Maybe having to escrow more tokens or bitcoin during launch phase could work as a deterrent for scammers? Just thinking out loud

1 Like