True Decentralization Requires Action, Not Just Words

Hello to all,

A DAO should recognize and fairly reward long-term supporters, this is a fundamental principle for building a truly strong, resilient, and committed community. Beyond that, it should promote ongoing engagement and ensure real decentralization of infrastructure, creating broad and accessible opportunities for everyone, not just a select few.

While there are some initiatives already underway, it’s clear that there is still significant room to deepen decentralization and more fairly distribute responsibilities and benefits. Only in this way can the DAO become truly balanced and sustainable in the long run.

And here’s the most critical point: a DAO cannot operate like a closed club, relying on “hand-picked” elements by the Jupiter team or close circles. If the main opportunities continue to be reserved for a small group, we are perpetuating an unequal system where the majority of the community is sidelined, receiving only small crumbs.

Another important issue is how users present their ideas and projects to the DAO. At present, there’s no clear pre-vote or selection process to identify which projects might genuinely be of interest to the DAO. This raises key questions:

  1. Who decides which projects are worth developing?
  2. When members submit proposals, what guarantees are there that their ideas won’t simply be taken over, leaving the original proposer sidelined and just another anonymous contributor?

Without a transparent roadmap outlining what the team and the DAO plan to implement, continuing to accept proposals feels, at best, disingenuous. In fact, it might be better to stop accepting open submissions entirely, because in its current form, it does not reflect well.

Another essential aspect is the transparency of decision-making criteria and success metrics. A DAO that aspires to true decentralization must clearly communicate how decisions are made and what indicators define the feasibility and success of a project. Without this transparency, the community cannot properly track progress or fairly evaluate the real impact of initiatives, which further erodes trust and engagement.

If things continue this way, perhaps it’s time to rethink the terminology. Instead of calling it a DAO, why not rename it something like the “Jupiter Influencer & Promotion Club”, which would more accurately reflect the reality if the primary focus is on marketing and pushing the JUP token, rather than true decentralized governance.

Of course, some might say: “If you don’t like it, don’t participate.” But my response is: when you’re invested and have bought into narratives of PPP, decentralization, and community-driven development, only to see those ideals quietly reversed, it’s entirely fair to raise these concerns. :slight_smile:


Just to add a little context here: back at the start of April, I shared the idea of introducing validators into the DAO. Fast forward to May, and what do we see? Validators making their entrance. :wink:

Funny thing is, at the time, I didn’t see anyone from the team stepping up to say it was a good idea or giving feedback. But now, suddenly, it’s being talked about as if it was always a great idea. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Not pointing fingers, but it’s a good reminder that community contributions matter and that real recognition of ideas (at the time they’re shared) is key if we want a truly collaborative and decentralized environment.

From this moment on, I will no longer propose new development initiatives but will instead lend my active voice to championing what I believe is right.


@0xSoju
@Kash @meow @9yointern


@Rodrigues770471

6 Likes

Man, I feel this one a little too much.

It’s wild how close this hits to everything I’ve been trying to say — just in a more level-headed tone than my last writing. The fact that even someone writing calmly, constructively, and without sarcasm ends up drawing the same conclusions… well, that says a lot. If you ever find a min, take a look at my satire - How to Farm JUP the Right Way

The “Jupiter Influencer & Promotion Club” line made me laugh because I’ve literally joked the DAO should be renamed to CAT — Community Affairs Taskforce.

Also, this bit: “who decides which projects are worth developing?” — that’s the question. Because right now, it feels like it’s not “the DAO” deciding, it’s a few tight circles steering things informally.

And yeah, it stings to see something you floated get picked up later without even a nod. Not because of ego — but because it proves the point: there’s no structure for recognition, no trust layer between proposers and decision-makers. Just a vibe loop.

Let’s hope it won’t put a target on your back — saying these things out loud tends to get you labeled as bitter, or “not constructive,” or just ignored. But you said what needed to be said. And you said it well.

Anyway, thanks for writing this.

2 Likes

Hello @ihateoranges

Thank you for your support and for your words so in line with what we stand for. I’ve read some of your posts and, like you, I believe that:

  • We must speak loudly and clearly, even without guarantees of immediate recognition or of becoming a “GOD CAT” of the community.
  • We must share our ideas, rather than keeping them to ourselves out of fear of not being rewarded.
  • We must challenge the status quo whenever something is not right, without silencing our voices in anticipation of rewards.

Even if tokens or medals don’t follow, truth and transparency are what truly strengthen a DAO. The greatest reward is:

Building, together, a truly decentralized DAO, where every voice matters and every contribution counts, even without material rewards.

I’m leaving one more post here, in case there’s any doubt about my involvement with Jupiter and its platform.

Courage inspires us to continue fighting for a space of mutual trust and real participation. Thank you very much!

@Rodrigues770471

2 Likes

Hello to @all,

Leaving the image below in case anyone still has doubts about my involvement with Jupiter and its platform.
What you’re seeing are my PERP transactions, all stats hidden except for one: the “m”, which stands for millions in volume.
I’m not here to show off, I’m here to show that I’ve been active, invested, and committed.


Since the DAO is meant to be a public space, I believe I not only can, but should voice my concerns when things aren’t going in the right direction.

Let’s be real, by launching and maintaining this platform, Jupiter is facilitating financial transactions at scale.
That comes with a need for responsibility, transparency, and openness, especially when claiming to operate under the values of decentralization and community-first.


You can’t claim to be building for the people while ignoring the people who are actually here:

  • trading,
  • building,
  • and showing up early.

Feedback shouldn’t be filtered by social proximity, it should be welcomed, especially when it comes from those who are already invested and contributing.


If the DAO is just a stage where only a few are given the mic, then maybe it’s time to stop calling it a DAO.

But if we truly want to build something fair, permissionless, and long-term,
then it starts with:

  • listening,
  • recognizing,
  • and opening the door to more than just a familiar inner circle.

Cheers,
@Rodrigues770471

Hi @Rodrigues770471, it seems the whole validator thing offended you somehow, even though it means revenue for the DAO, which is a good thing.

I want to clarify a few things and engage in a constructive conversation. However, if I feel it’s not being constructive at any point, I will stop engaging.

Once again, I do not speak for the DAO; this is my opinion.

The Jupiter validator has been live and running for more than a year and a half. The only change is that it’s now part of the DAO.

Another important issue is how users present their ideas and projects to the DAO. At present, there’s no clear pre-vote or selection process to identify which projects might genuinely be of interest to the DAO. This raises key questions:

  1. Who decides which projects are worth developing?
  2. When members submit proposals, what guarantees are there that their ideas won’t simply be taken over, leaving the original proposer sidelined and just another anonymous contributor?

Now, this is a good question, one that probably requires a deeper conversation. Here’s my opinion about the topic, and I would definitely be on board with talking a lot more about this.

#1: In my opinion, people with experience developing projects that are worth something should be the ones doing it. Why? It takes an inhuman amount of will, energy, and focus to build something “real.” Only those who did it understand what it takes. The best people to provide an informed opinion are those who have experience. Then, if the investment is considerable, the DAO should probably vote.

#2: Most likely, there’s not a bulletproof method to avoid this from happening. How many AI code editor startups do you see today? What matters is not the idea—everyone has those—what matters is how much hard work you are willing to put in and the execution.

While there are some initiatives already underway, it’s clear that there is still significant room to deepen decentralization and more fairly distribute responsibilities and benefits. Only in this way can the DAO become truly balanced and sustainable in the long run.

To me, this is a statement that will always be true. I prefer to evaluate this from a different perspective. Are we moving forward and improving based on the experience we are gaining? If the answer is yes, then things will work as expected.

If things continue this way, perhaps it’s time to rethink the terminology. Instead of calling it a DAO, why not rename it something like the “Jupiter Influencer & Promotion Club” , which would more accurately reflect the reality if the primary focus is on marketing and pushing the JUP token, rather than true decentralized governance.

Now, this is some advice for you, since I’ve seen your tendency to say things like this in the last week. If you are a builder, then build and stop wasting energy on those comments. At any point in our careers, we need mentors and/or people who give us opportunities. Those people will not take you seriously if you say or do things like that, and without mentors, your journey becomes 10x harder.

Why did you come inclusion that because you talk about validators that is the reason why team introduced validators in may,it could be coincidence or are you trying to praise yourself and why as team not put other stuff you talk about into action. This is a suggestion forum don’t make this platform look like beef forum.

1 Like

Hey @BAYZWISE , Yes Man, pay attention to the text before trying to cash in free dividends! :wink:

  1. Coincidence or not? I never said in absolute terms “it was only because I spoke up.” I merely pointed out that I suggested validators in April and, the next month, voilà: validators on stage. If you think that’s just a coincidence, congratulations, you’re quite the detective of coincidences. Grab some binoculars and read it again.
  2. Self-promotion? Hold on, I’m not parading around. I’m simply noting that a good idea surfaced, took a nap, and when it resurfaced, it was already perfected. If that strikes you as bragging, maybe you need to revisit the concept of “recognizing merit.”
  3. Other shelved suggestions? Great question! If you were half as keen on championing those as you are on calling this a “beef forum,” I’d love to see you wave those flags. But I get it, probably you’re a yes man chasing dividends: you’ll agree to anything as long as you get a few crumbs.

So before you paint this as “beef,” read it again with a calm mind, and if you really want to help, pick an idea and push it forward instead of whistling to the sidelines.

No more comments, :+1:

@Rodrigues770471

It seems you’re new here, saying someone is yes man because I don’t agreed with your suggestion presentation if I’m yes man I would have agreed with you though I know you’re doing it to get team attention.
All the best!

1 Like

I do agree with the majority of this. A bit strong but sometimes it’s what it takes to be heard. Long term supporters should definitely be compensated differently. Also supporters who never unstaked should have a boosted ASR.

Great post!

2 Likes