Time limits on LFG winners?

Those are some great points, I hope the team take them into consideration!

5 Likes

I think timeline is one of the critical components of a launch. Obviously, every team would love to time the market and launch their token when the market is on the rise. No one would like to launch their token at a time when the market is facing headwinds, especially from macro factors. That said, the point of a token launch is to raise money with a valuation that seems fair, irrespective of market conditions. So, there should be an agreed-upon timeline for the token launch.

Additionally, having a specific timeframe helps in creating a sense of urgency and accountability. It ensures that teams stay focused on their milestones and deliverables. It’s also a way to group projects in the same cohort for voting, which can create a more competitive and dynamic environment.

There could always be exceptions where the team has the option to move the launch beyond the agreed date, such as in the case of a hack or significant macro factors. However, we should make sure that teams don’t take advantage of the exception clause. This could be managed by having a transparent review process for any requested delays, ensuring that only genuine cases are granted extensions.

Moreover, for future rounds, we should consider contestants based on their likelihood to launch their token in the near future. This can be assessed through their readiness, development progress, and commitment to the project. Prioritizing projects that are closer to launch can help maintain momentum and deliver tangible results to the community more quickly.

Implementing these measures can help in maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the LFG process, ensuring that only serious and prepared projects move forward and receive community support.

1 Like

I agree, there should be either

A requirement to launch within a specific amount of time, say within 90 days, or
A specific roadmap that identifies the launch date so the community knows what we are getting into.
If a launch is delayed, there should be an escalator clause in the agreement that requires the project to provide more tokens to the rewards pool if they fail to meet their deadline.
If they miss the deadline twice, the community reserves the right to revoke the launch opportunity if desired
If any launch date is missed, the project must release an announcement within 48 hours explaining why. Sorry for copy this but it was good​:rofl::fire:

1 Like

I agree and think a time limit should be implemented. A project that is up for vote should have a date in mind to launch since this is a launchpad. I like the idea of requiring more tokens if the company is not ready. A delayed launch can actual be detrimental to the JUP token since ASR currently is quarterly. IF we vote a project and they aren’t ready to launch but another project is ready that did not make it, then the JUP DAO is missing out on the fees for that quarter. IF a project applies in a month and can’t launch in that month may be beneficial to charge increase fees. The projects are benefiting from the marketing of Jupiter and attaching to the name. The longer this goes on I feel the more they should be required to allocate. But us as JUP voters should do a better job of ensuring we receive the launch timeline or only voting the ones that make sense for us.

2 Likes

This is a launch pad if you’re not ready to launch then you probably shouldn’t apply to a launchpad. There is nothing stopping you from applying later when you are ready.

2 Likes

Yes, it seems to me that deadlines should be introduced so that people can better assess the intentions and prospects of the project

2 Likes

Yeah for sure. We defs know who the culprits our in delaying. Its annoying, but leaving us hanging hurts their own community.

3 Likes

100%. For me it appears some projects (maybe not now but we may see it in the future) only pic Jupiters platform for the attention its brings over to their token. Jup is obv well known, but picture this. Proj wins vote, the delays token for several months, jup voters are anticipating the launch and constantly checking for updates = more views and attention to their project.

3 Likes

I agree, I mean I myself come from a project and of course we “have an agenda” that is somehow logically related to driving engagement. I mean hey, it is a Launchpad.

But you are right, this can be easily abused or is treated a bit low effort by bad players.

I completely agree with your perspective. It’s clear that the allure of Jupiter’s platform is not just its robust features but also the spotlight it shines on projects. Winning a spot on Jupiter can indeed create a buzz, and a strategic delay in token launch could potentially keep the community on their toes, leading to increased visibility and engagement. It’s a clever marketing move, albeit one that requires a delicate balance to maintain trust and momentum. Here’s to hoping that projects leverage this attention for genuine growth and innovation! :rocket::eyes:

3 Likes

Absolutely, leveraging platforms like Jupiter for visibility and engagement is a smart move for any project. It’s understandable that projects have their agendas, which often include maximising exposure and community interest. However, as you mentioned, there’s a fine line between strategic marketing and potential misuse of delays. Maintaining transparency and delivering on promises are crucial for building long-term trust and credibility within the community. Here’s hoping that projects on Jupiter use their spotlight not just for initial buzz but for sustainable growth and innovation.

Overall i feel your response with your project is the perfect balance; that is, you want the Jup exposure, however arent going to mis-use it in bad faith. I always enjoy my discussion with you Merlin!

4 Likes

Thank you for the nice compliment Lochie, I have to return that in a slightly clownish way today, because I can not handle compliments well:

Your compliments hit the mark, but let’s be honest, it was like shooting stars in a galaxy of your awesomeness – pretty hard to miss!

Thanks for your thanks, but save your gratitude for someone who doesn’t have the easy job of pointing out the obvious greatness. :wink:

Keep being fabulous, and I’ll also keep the “revenge” compliments coming. It’s a tough job, but someone’s got to do it!

4 Likes

I agree surprise drops are bullish IMO. Planned drops mean huge dumps and everyone is trying to get in at who knows what price. When these surprise drops happen we get the true believers in and the whales don’t all get in early and dump on us.

2 Likes

there is a risk in web3 with suprise drops and scams however but i get you

2 Likes

That’s true fam. But, scams are everywhere & it’s the land of DYOR or the vampires will suck you dry :man_vampire: :woman_vampire:. $JUP is changing that with the community coming together as a J.U.P Fam :rocket:. LFG is a great start

2 Likes

I concur with what @0xSoju said. Max waiting time set at 3 months.

It is important approved launch teams have the chance to prepare properly and not be rushed… and a quarter (3months) feels like good enough time.

3 Likes

This is awesome idea. Gg

2 Likes

Thank you. i think its important concept to discuss.

2 Likes

This is a valid observation. If there is a clear road map for project launch by projects prior to votes it mitigates the length of time taken as teams will be working to make sure they are working within agreed time frame.

2 Likes

every project is different, launching tokens always have legal issues to deal with.As long as their introduction paper is convincing enough for anyone to vote for them and have a good indication of a roadmap, projects should be free to decide for themselves

1 Like

Thank you for your input, but i feel frustration will boil with delays, it would get annoying for ASR reward to be postponed 2-3 ASR QRT’s

1 Like