just to reiterate - there is a difference between decentralization and independence.
there is no centralization here - the Team is not going to be voting extra, or getting extra weight in votes, etc. the governance power will remain every bit as distributed as it currently is, if this proposal passes.
however you are right that this proposal - in the short term - makes clear that the Team needs to be involved to rebuild structures within the DAO and ensure it’s able to produce effective outcomes. but even so, we are committed - as outlined in the proposal - to getting the DAO to be indepdentn within the 2 year timeline, one step at a time.
ultimately, we have to decide as a group whether we want to have the appearance of being a full DAO (which, in theory, has no team involvement whatsoever), or if we want to have something productive and long-lasting that helps drive forward our shared interests. for me, the latter is the more important thing, and based on early signs of voting seems that is a sentiment shared by many.
thanks for voting your opinion though! even if we disagree, i appreciate you partaking in the process and making your voice heard
fees from the protocol go to the litterbox trust for the next 2 years - not sure what you mean by “no fee-share”?
and re: the openness of the books - those items you mention are not the same as asking specific salaries, etc.
but again, there is a critical difference: VCs are underwriting the risk of the company they are investing in. a startup cannot build without capital (as a broad generalization), vs. the relation with token holders is different. tokens are not equity, and do not represent the same kind of investment that a VC gets when they invest (since they get voting shares, may get a board seat, etc).
in theory i’m definitely open to high level metrics about the business, but suggesting that the DAO is entitled to them is not fair or accurate.
i’d also say: voting on this proposal is not related to a pro-forma or anything else. that would be something you should consider as you buy/hold our token (though you’d also have to then sell 99% of other tokens, since very few other projects do this as well)
and as to why not create a real plan: this is the first step in that plan! in an earlier draft i actually laid out everything step by step, but after community feedback people suggested we keep this vote narrow to the specific scope of the DAO, etc, to make the voting more clear. if the plan was too detailed here, the fear was people might vote against it because of an individual step in the plan they didn’t agree with. the important thing right now is getting the social mandate on the generla direction, rather than on the step-by-step plans
This is a good direction and I appreciate the feed back taken from the previous votes and criticisms of not having only essential topics that affects the Dao be voted upon, transparency is appreciated but too much of it caused unnecessary fud due to lack of understanding or communication. We need to see results that this working groups and people will create as we go along the 2years requested. Let’s make Jupiter great as always.
I always saw the DAO as a democratized board of directors rather than a marketing department. While I think the ideas behind the vote are right, the vote is far too broad and there are no competing options. I will vote to reject this one in hopes that future proposals contain more solid details rather than carrots on a stick (i.e. litter box trust control).
I also take some issue with the idea that the DAO and team will eventually be independent, when the team will be large shareholders of the DAO. The team has 100% control of what they do and will eventually have a very large voting block in the DAO, thus it seems like they keep complete control of everything - while giving the appearance that the DAO is independent.
If JUP voting is ceremonial and its value depends on the Jupiter Team to gift revenue sources then JUP holds very little power and depends completely on a kind, generous, fair Jupiter Team to give it value.
Thanks for the reply. I get there’s darts being thrown at ya left and right, but please be assured, there are none coming from me. Although I do tend to prefer directness I agree, some folks take it too far, but let’s be careful to not let unreasonable scrutiny from getting in the way of a productive level of visibility.
For my holdings, I see it at as an overall investment decision. If I’m holding JUP, then I’m also staking it and involved with DAO. The inverse also must be true of course. It’s all a singular decision for many.
I was under the impression JUP did represent ownership in the project (+tokens staked to qualify). If not, what does? Perhaps I made some assumptions based on statements made in the past re: DAO receiving a portion of revenue.
But I’m having a very difficult time finding original tokenomics, DAO charter, etc. If you can point me in the right direction, I’d appreciate it. Ultimately, trying to understand the exact ownership structure and utility.
Part of what’s behind my questions is from a purely logical POV. JUP and DAO are worthless without the success of Jupiter, thus the goals across J.U.P should also be the goals of each branch. Jupiter has raised capital by selling JUP; many JUP holders have staked it. So with DAO members representing a material portion of the capital needed to build the Jupiter startup, it is an exercise of underwriting the risk for many of us. Knowing top-line budgets/projections would certainly help inform DAO decisions.
Some food for thought - if modeled well, there’d be no reason to have a deadline of when the team no longer has involvement. If all parties are incentivized by, and held accountable to, the same ultimate goals (obviously while also being held accountable to their respective focus) then all parties should naturally want ongoing collaboration. Finding that balance will strengthen the entire ecosystem. If competing/conflicts of interest or imbalance of incentives start creeping in, it’s not hard to imagine what comes next.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of words, some future ideas and goals without specifics.
What exactly is proposed in this vote? Just a desire to be independent? Well, to be honest, this is not a proposal, but just an idea (a good one), but just an idea.
Perhaps it is worth voicing more specifically, because at the moment I cannot understand at all what exactly we are voting for.
It feels like we want to vote now for the owners to no longer give money to DAO, and for DAO to earn and spend it themselves.
And at the same time we write that we want to be independent, but the problem is that the owners have and will have a large share of the votes and can, if necessary, re-vote the community.
Where are the specific numbers, what share of the votes does each have?
I like this tasking comment, results driven:
All Grantees and Work Groups should be evaluated by their ability to make meaningful progress towards helping the DAO accomplish its core purpose. Their scope should remain narrow, and their work should remain in public.
It’s not a proposal so much as it is a resolution to define and clarify the purpose of the DAO, some goals toward Progressive Independence, and the role of the team from here forward.
This all makes a lot of sense to me. I’ve voted yes.
The power of the Jupiter DAO/community has proven to be more social rather than technical (in contrast to other DAOs).
With the recent acquisition of DRiP it further underpins that Jupiter sees the growth of Solana is in more retail and social focused apps. And frankly that is the biggest future driver of block space demand as professional trader fees will eventually trend to near zero as more and more bespoke trading venues (Bullet, Hyperliquid ect..) emerge. Retail users can generate many multiples in fee revenue, from day to day transactions, consistently over the long term.
The DAO should be focused on this growth and the Jupiter team focused on the technical support that will enable those apps and this proposal seem to be firmly headed in that direction.
I think the direction Jupiter has taken and continue on to take is great. They dream big, they execute big, and they deliver big.
The DAO allows for a certain community aspect which is also great.
However, longer term, the DAO becomes the equivalent of a board of directors. In short, it’s there to make sure value accrues to the token and not to [insert a long list of ways to rug]. This is where a lot of successful crypto project… “failed”. It’s also why there was a lot of drama recently on compensation. Users, who have been soft rugged on successful projects too many times.
Personally, I trust the Jupiter team. The decision they make is what’s best for the token. Seems like they are following the startup model: Pay well, acquire, break things, fix quickly, move fast. The vision is there. The execution is there. The team is there. The community is there.
And the result have been beyond impressive. Going from best aggregator into best crypto platform in 1.5 years. Double down again! Keep growing! I actually believe Jupiter is THE CHOSEN ONE. Bring balance to crypto and finance, for everyone.
I’d love for the DAO to slowly take on that role over the next few years. The role of making sure that value accrual ultimately goes to the token holder. It’s a very nuanced role. Must not slow down the team.
Aka, who owns Jupiter and everything the team is building? Is JUP a proxy for ownership, or is it just a product? Legally it’s a very difficult question to answer, hence why everyone is being patient. A question that slowly must be addressed.
I agree, some folks take it too far, but let’s be careful to not let unreasonable scrutiny from getting in the way of a productive level of visibility.