Yeah I agree bro. I’m talking about the rare circumstances where let’s say someone goes camping off grid for a week. Or their mobile phone providers system crashes for half a week ect
2 Likes
Nice step , useful and logic as irl the proxy voting are important to reach a quorum .
1 Like
OK, that makes sense.
2 Likes
will go for this for us not to miss important voting on a particular matter, and of course need a deliberation on mechanics and make a pilot for this one
2 Likes
I don’t think the same way. If delegation is introduced, a large portion of the community will delegate their votes to just a few individuals, effectively centralizing decision-making. This means that in most votes, the outcomes will be determined by a handful of people.
We already saw a clear example of this during the Jupuary #1 vote. Wallets with fewer JUP mostly voted yes, but because a smaller number of wallets with large holdings voted no, the proposal didn’t pass.
Introducing delegation would further amplify the control that whales already have over governance. It wouldn’t just be about large holders influencing the vote anymore—it would also bring smaller holders under their influence, consolidating decision-making into the hands of just a few individuals.
I believe everyone should take responsibility for their own votes, stay engaged with the governance process, and actively participate in shaping the future of Jupiter. Delegating this responsibility risks creating an even more centralized system, which goes against the principles of fair governance.
6 Likes
If delegation was later implement delegator should able to delegate and undelegate at any time and reward should carry low tie unlike people who stake for long term through ASR.
3 Likes
That is defs a good point
Like anything there is flaws
Thought that this maybe a good place to post this.
As there will be eight proposals to vote on coming up. Could we structure it like this.
Split up the eight votes into two groups and give 15 days to complete each group.
This allows everyone the time to vote and would create the same engagement time frame than having eight votes every four days!?
2 Likes
Hello Lochie! This is a great idea and if incase the Team wants to implement this will be helpful to a lot.
Only concern is, will it be risky on the contract? or is it too much work & cost to implement it.
I also cross-posted it in the subreddit & jupreddit x/twitter for more visibility.
4 Likes
I’m pretty sure 4 days of period won’t see solana being down for the whole time. Also, unless someone’s phone is stolen, or they forget it somewhere, it’s on them (except for the case where it gets stolen). Apart from these two scenarios, I don’t see anyone not having access to their phone when travelling since web3 isn’t the only usecase for their device, it’s a communication device.
4 Likes
I agree with BAYZWISE’s point this in this. Although this is a really good idea to improve the strength of Jupiter governance, if there are multiple options to choose from, each person with their own opinion would have different choices, so a single person selecting a single option can lead to a completely different result since every vote/voting power counts.
Also, not to blunt or rude, I don’t think it takes too much of time to make a vote, couple of minutes or 10 at max, which everyone can spare if they believe their opinion matters.
The vote in this case would increase the participation of users and their stakes JUPs, but not their opinion, which should be of utmost importance when considering a DAO decision.
4 Likes
I like this idea. @Aro had mentioned it in his list of things to explore in 2025, and I was supportive of it then, too (Jupiter DAO: Things we should explore in 2025 - #2 by WTP). I think the Helium DAO has done this quite well, as users are able to read about each of the “Delegates” (every Delegate has their own profile), and users are also still able to vote themselves if they wish, with their own vote superseding the Delegate’s vote if there is a difference.
One thing I would add to hopefully address the concern of centralization would be a cap on the voting power a single Delegate could accumulate. Perhaps 5% of the total staked JUP. I am not as concerned about centralization as others (this is more of an efficiency point, and not a centralization point - the people delegating are still individuals, so having their votes just more efficiently get tallied through a delegate of their choice (this is a decentralized decision, as well - no one is forcing them to delegate)), but this cap should help address this concern nonetheless. I think 5% is a good level, but am open to feedback on this level.
6 Likes
Nah from my side.
I love my bro lochie, however, i have always loved the idea of Jup DAO allowing each “citizen” to vote directly on every “bill”, rather than delegating the power to some representatives in “congress”
representatives may not always have the delegators’ best interests in mind.
larger representatives could become a single source of failure.
citizens directly voting on bills is usually the best way to do it, however it is expensive to call for referendum in a real world scenario. We have achieved it with $jup and should not give that up.
citizens aware enough to vote on the proposals related to a platform they love are being rewarded today. a change might mean lowering the quality of the ASR recipients.
Just my 2 cents lol
4 Likes
Just another way to centralize the DAO even more.
After the 1st Jupuary vote, some of us realized how centralized is this DAO. Delegating votes will only add to that.
I’m sad to see how Jupiverse it’s owed by the insiders.
You mofos thought you will gonna dictate JUP’s price. All you did was to push the real users away.
You mofos come to tell us what’s best for Jupiter but you never have a look at the numbers.
Fuck this shit.
3 Likes
it is a great idea but some people can abuse it.
People can start a business to control delegated wallets from people that doesn’t want to be part of the DAO. These people stake, giving other people the right to vote in their behalf. These people will get ASR and not participate and the person voting can charge them a fee
2 Likes
Agree with you currently the Dao is still not fully decentralised. I do think this a problem of voting power being integrated as part of the Dao. But I don’t think including a few emergency delegations would be cause for much decentralisation. As people would delegate to like minded people. The main issue is mostly large capital decides the outcome most and not always long term involved individuals with less capital. This may be good or bad depending on the situation. As we witnessed. Would prefer an airtight approach.
4 Likes
Bro this is another bs. This is another PPP as long we pump their bags. The majority of the votes was already concentrated before Jupuary. Jupuary allocation was horrible. The same people got more power. Now this bs with voting delegation
3 Likes
The principle sounds sensible and I would back this idea to the next stage. I’d like to hear more around the mechanics / process and particularly around how long delegation can last. Ultimately the most important part of ASR for me is the word “Active” therefore I’d be keen to ensure we don’t lose sight of this.
4 Likes
In as much as this is well said, we have to remember Jup is a community that believes so much in decentralization and community participation, delegating votes go against these ethos, delegating is edging towards centralization, delegating isn’t giving every holders/stakers the voice they own, rather giving others to speak on their behalf and I don’t expect your decision to always align with that of your delegate.
Also, I guess this proposal was written at the angle of stakers maximizing their ASR Rewards, well the A in ASR stands for Active lol 
, so yeah to benefit you’ve got to be active.
Thanks 
3 Likes
That’s another great does, howeve, the point of the vote is to 1. See if the vote is successful then 2. Implement the change
I don’t see the team being able to implement 4 things at once, but maybe for small proposals we could?
2 Likes