I understand your reasoning. But people want to vote to get ASR, do we want to encourage reckless voting if they feel they should abstain?
I am not sure, I just feel abstain feels like an easy way out but not giving us enough information on why abstain is there.
An easy fix could be if abstain is chosen, they must drop a comment in a comment box explaining why abstained?
What is executable with abstain tho? No, if anything should be added to the Abstain vote total (not split three ways). If youâre not voting yes, then its an automatic no.
Since there are people voting for ASR rewards. The abstain option is an easy way not to get informed about the proposal and still get some rewards.
IMO âAbstainâ is something important to have because people might not feel comfortable with voting âYesâ or âNoâ.
But in this case; where people get rewards for voting this options gets abused.
My suggestion: âAbstainâ remains and gives 100% ASR rewards as the other options do BUT has only 50% as voting power for a proposal. Means that all staked $JUP that have voted for a proposal by selecting âAbstainâ will be only relevant to 50%.
Additionally to that because âAbstainâ becomes âweakerâ for the result we increase the threshold for a vote to pass to 60%.
Example:
100.000 $JUP vote âYESâ
50.000 $JUP vote âNOâ
80.000 $JUP vote âAbstainâ
Total voting power to decide the result = 190.000 $JUP (Abstain counts as 50%)
âYesâ: 52%
âNoâ: 26%
âAbstainâ: 21%
Vote does NOT pass
âAbstainâ means to deliberately choose not to do something, especially something that others might expect or want you to do. It is often used in contexts like:
⢠Voting: Choosing not to vote either for or against a proposal.
Example: âThree members abstained from voting on the new policy.â
⢠Personal choices: Refraining from certain activities, such as drinking alcohol or eating certain foods.
Example: âShe abstains from eating meat for health reasons.â
Two different suggestions :
(1) Remove Abstain. Enforce an easy knowledge barrier to voting. Only âinformedâ voters should participate and only active and informed participation should lead to ASR rewards.
(2) Remove Abstain and replace it with a ârevisionâ option. Move the pass rate to 60%. If a vote fails to achieve 60% and revision attracts more than 20% , the proposers get to submit a revised proposal based on community feedback. If revision gets less than 20% and yes doesnât get 60% , the vote fails and cannot be brought back for another vote. No stands.
I kinda like this tbh.
For 2, is the pass rate of 60% based on the proportion of non-abstain votes? That is, are abstain votes included or excluded from determining the 60% threshold? This is a critical point. Having a higher required pass rate without excluding the abstain votes and incorporating a 20% revision fail-trigger (I refer to it this way because if ârevisionâ receives 20%, the proposal âfailsâ) is quite worrisome. I fear we will stagnate as a DAO and community in such a scenario, because very few proposals will achieve 60% and not succumb to the fail-trigger.
There are thankfully many folks with very strong opinions, and who feel they can design a âbetterâ proposal. The problem is, using the WG votes as a prime example, these folks are NOT the ones who are offering to do the work necessary for the project. Having an opinion on how much someone should be compensated really doesnât matter, frankly, since the only opinion that does is that of the one who is asking for the compensation. They have essentially said, with the proposal, this is the work my team and I are willing to do for this level of compensation. People who do not like the terms of the proposed arrangement should vote against, but I fear many might select âReviseâ instead, thinking a âbetterâ option would be one with less pay. This is a fallacy, since the individual/team has already communicated the level of pay they are expecting for the work.
Iâd say only Yes or No count in determining the outcome of the vote. Do not count revision votes, unless revision attracts the highest overall % of the vote. In that circumstance the outcome is to revise the proposal.
Letâs assume revision does not achieve the highest %, Iâd then say yes needs to achieve 60% of the yes + no votes in order to pass ( exclude revision votes at this point ).
If yes doesnât achieve 60% of the yes + no votes, then we look to revision to see if it has achieved at least 20% of the overall. If it has, the proposal can come back with a revised text at some point. If not, the proposal fails and no wins. It cannot come back.
People need to have the ability to voice their opinion that they like the idea in principle but are looking for revisions.
People also need to know that if a large no vote wins, this proposal shouldnât come back again and again and again. No voices should be heard too.
TL;DR - Abstaining distorts governance by empowering indecision over action, and should be removed as an option. If it is to stay as an option, the proportion of votes it receives should be excluded when calculating the winning option.
A vote in the DAO should reflect the will of those who are actively engaged in shaping the DAOâs future. If a participant is only voting for rewards, hasnât researched the issue, or is unwilling to take a stance, their decision should not influence the outcome. Including âAbstainâ as a counted option risks undermining clarity and the resolve of the DAO.
A DAO that prioritizes clarity and decisive action over bureaucratic stagnation will thrive. Excluding âAbstain,â either as an option entirely or from determining the winning option, ensures that only those committed to shaping the outcome determine the DAOâs direction.
NOTE: Based on my initial research, it seems the exclusion of âAbstainâ votes from the final vote tally does have precedence in the procedures of several major governing bodies (e.g. UN Security Council, US Congress).
to me it is clearly a: âi am not for or against it, but i am fine what ever the outcome will beâ
I believe the Abstain option is an essential component of a democratic voting process, as it allows individuals who are uncertain or unwilling to influence the outcome to still participate without being forced to take a stance. Removing the Abstain option could pressure people into making a decision they donât fully support, which risks distorting the legitimacy of the result.
While there may be concerns about how Abstain is counted, the solution should not be to remove it but rather to clarify its role in vote calculations. A possible approach is ensuring Abstain is recorded separately and does not contribute to the determination of a winning option, while still being noted as an indication of participation.
Ultimately, keeping Abstain as an option respects voter autonomy and acknowledges that not every issue has a clear yes-or-no answer for all participants.
While I understand the argument that abstaining in a countryâs election often means simply not voting, a DAO operates differently from a traditional government, and the Abstain option serves a unique and valuable function in this context.
Unlike national elections, where abstaining is a passive act, in a DAO like JUP, voting is tied to staking and incentives, meaning members are actively encouraged to participate. Because of this structure, forcing a binary âForâ or âAgainstâ choice could result in people voting arbitrarily rather than expressing their true stance. The Abstain option allows members to signal that they are engaged but undecided, disagree with the framing of the proposal, or need more information before taking a firm stance.
More importantly, recording Abstain votes provides valuable insight for DAO leadership. If a significant portion of voters abstain, itâs a signal that something about the proposalâwhether its clarity, fairness, or relevanceâneeds to be addressed. Without this data, leaders might misinterpret low voter engagement as apathy rather than a sign of deeper concerns. Keeping Abstain ensures transparency in decision-making and helps the DAO refine its governance approach based on actual member sentiment rather than assumptions.
Instead of removing Abstain, the focus should be on refining how its presence is interpretedâperhaps treating it as an indicator for further discussion rather than as a determining factor in vote outcomes.
We cannot execute the âAbstainâ outcome. Instead, I think it would be more effective to either :
Another thought : We only care about abstain being an option because of the existence of ASR.
If we decoupled ASR from votes and found another way to reward active stakers, I donât think we would have any real concerns here. We would probably keep abstain and folks would be generally happy.
i believe the weight of abstain can be reduced. Not for ASR rewards but for importance to the decision
Miglioramento del processo decisionale democratico
Introduzione
Attualmente, lâopzione di votare neutro (astensione) nelle votazioni crea ambiguitĂ e limita lâefficacia delle decisioni. Proponiamo un sistema piĂš democratico che promuova la partecipazione attiva e favorisca scelte ben ponderate attraverso la discussione e la selezione di progetti concreti.
Proposta.
(1. Eliminazione dellâopzione neutra) Rimuovere lâastensione come scelta nelle votazioni per evitare risultati poco chiari e non attuabili.
2. Presentazione di progetti. Offrire la possibilitĂ a tutti i partecipanti di proporre idee o progetti da discutere.
3. Forum di discussione. Creare uno spazio democratico dove le proposte possano essere analizzate, migliorate e supportate da feedback della comunitĂ .
4. Selezione delle migliori opzioni: Identificare le proposte piĂš promettenti attraverso una prima votazione o un consenso preliminare.
5. Voto finale: Scegliere lâopzione piĂš adatta per lâesecuzione concreta.
Vantaggi.
Chiarezza nelle decisioni: Ogni voto porta a una scelta concreta.
Maggior partecipazione: Tutti possono contribuire con idee e riflessioni.
-Soluzioni migliori: La discussione preliminare permette di perfezionare le proposte.
Conclusione
Adottare questo sistema migliorerĂ il processo decisionale, promuovendo una vera democrazia partecipativa e aumentando la trasparenza e lâefficacia delle votazioni.
Me too, Iâd prefer an amend / revision option instead.
If abstain remains as an option: give them their ASR, donât count it toward the vote at all.
Voting âAbstainâ is a cop out. I said this almost a year ago and still stand by it.
Make a decision - yes or no - based on the proposal as presented. Period. Full stop. No, âRevisionâ. No, âMaybe but if you change this, that or one of 17 other thingsâ. Simpler is better.
Iâm also leaning in favor of a 60% or greater majority for any proposal to pass.
In some countries, during government elections, all blank votesâvotes from people who abstainâare passed on to the final winner. Abstention votes are added together and favor the final winner. This is why funds are allocated to obtain those votes through financial gifts. Citizens exercise their vote out of obligation to obtain a valid certificate to access benefits, discounts for senior citizens, travel, permission to travel abroad, or vehicle registration permits, etc. Citizens aware of centralized political corruption are uninterested in the results; they only vote to obtain proof of participation, and their escape route is the blank vote. They blindly vote and take their role, which will help them flee the declining country. They donât trust any proposal and believe that the proposals will end up enriching the politicians in office and their inner circleâusually inherited positions or those assigned to them for the purposes they need to achieve. The system is always corrupt, and there are those who have no idea of ââthe true purpose of such a blank vote and assume it will benefit neither side.
Those with powerâin high placesâcreate the rules and the trap. In government politics, it is the path to submission and manipulation.
Request a review of the proposals; reevaluate the points before returning to the vote management process. 
..