Discussion: Representatives vs. Opt-In Delegation

[Kash]

@BlueZenith

Most of the real world has representative democracy because way back when, the technology didn’t exist for direct democracy. It does now. And the reason it is still that way is because once a group of people have power, they will fight like hell to never give it back.

It has been made crystal clear that JUP is 100% a governance token and nothing else. If I am forced to relinquish that responsibility to a delegate, it will have zero value to me.

And if some stakers don’t want to invest the “degree of bandwidth and attention that every vote requires to become adequately informed” then they should not hold the token.

I’m also in agreement with others that have pointed out the potential for whales to split stake to try and game the system.

100% in the camp of Option 2: Opt-In Delegation

i would strongly disagree that direct democracy isn’t in use because of technology/power dynamics.

it’s because countries have too much to legistlate on, and there’s no world in which a regular vote can stay informed on all of it. state legistlatures in the US for example can do up to 120,000 bills in a year. it’s just not feasible to have direct democracy at the same time.

but anyway, on the merits - i hear you re: delegation reducing your feeling that goverance is meaningful.

in theory, i agree that stakers who don’t want to invest time/energy into governance shouldn’t hold the token. but in practice, that is obviously not going to be the case as long as ASR exists.

re: whale splitting, i think it’s likely going to be solved by increasing the number of Representatives, which also makes it easier for more folks to remain actively involved personally, from their own wallet.

but all in all, appreciate your perspective!

[Kash]

@matto

I’ve never actually heard a complaint from anyone saying there are too many votes.

your DMs don’t look like my DMs then lolll

[Kash]

@Paba

I think Option 1 (Representative System) is a strong step forward — and likely the best fit for a DAO of this size and ambition. Speed, agility, and less voter fatigue are real needs, especially with the growing number of proposals we’re seeing.

The idea of democratically elected Representatives who can help move smaller proposals forward is appealing. It opens space for community leaders to emerge and lets everyday stakers stay involved without feeling overwhelmed. The ability to re-delegate vote-by-vote is a key feature — it prevents centralization and preserves individual control when needed.

That said, I do see a few nuances and potential trade-offs to highlight:

1. Some users may not actively manage their delegation. This could lead to poor vote quality over time.
2. While 301 is a fair number, we should keep an eye on whether it’s large enough to represent the diversity of the community, especially as JUP grows and decentralizes further.
3. A hybrid approach might be worth exploring (e.g. capped vote weight, or tiers).
4. If too many proposals get routed through reps, it could slowly disconnect broader DAO members from the governance process altogether. We need a good balance between agility and inclusion.

Still, overall — I support Option 1. It’s the most scalable path forward, as long as we continue to refine delegation UX, encourage transparency, and remain flexible in adjusting the rep count or thresholds based on real outcomes.

Looking forward to seeing this evolve and happy to participate in the testing phase if it rolls out. Great work by the team as always

1. agreed - i think the ASR benefit will keep them engaged on the margins though, checking from time to time, enough to keep vote quality above the bottom.

2. yeah, some of the other comments on here also making me think we could make it even bigger, though the coordination cost increases accordingly

3. say more?

4. definitely agree, hence the creation of the budget threshold. can reduce it if need be to make more things full-DAO worthy!

[WTP]

Thank you for the thoughtful replies!

I agree that there are some natural barriers, as you described, but I also know that people with resources can get over most of them, and, especially for the extra power it would bring, it would probably be worth it to them. Increasing the number of Representatives is also a possible additional mitigant, but 1) we get further into the unruly territory, and 2) we also reduce the threshold needed to be in the top X (let’s let X=1,001). For example, right now, 100,001 JUP staked would put you in the top ~800. See image below from our friends at catalytics.pro

Using the 20mm JUP example, they could create ~200 wallets with ~100k JUP each, and would have somewhere around 20% of Representatives in a 1,001 Representative scenario (795+200=995-1 (old 20mm wallet) = all in the top 994).

Finally, for 3, 1) hopefully the DAO treasury is never depleted, but 2) we can have a vote to deplete it of whatever is left. It would just need to go to a full vote (as it should).

Just sharing my additional thoughts. It will be a tough choice for the DAO.

Much love, my dear friend!

[BlueZenith]

@Kash

it’s because countries have too much to legistlate on, and there’s no world in which a regular vote can stay informed on all of it. state legistlatures in the US for example can do up to 120,000 bills in a year. it’s just not feasible to have direct democracy at the same time.

I strongly disagree with this. The only reason countries and states legislate so much is because those representatives are trying to justify their existence by over-inflating their importance. This brings to mind two quotes from Thomas Sowell:

“You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.”

“No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.”

Many countries would be much better off if 99% of their legislation were eliminated. Excessive regulation is the enemy of progress.

@Kash

in theory, i agree that stakers who don’t want to invest time/energy into governance shouldn’t hold the token. but in practice, that is obviously not going to be the case as long as ASR exists.

If you agree with it in theory then why reward them for their apathy? Not investing the time/energy is their decision to make. To me, the most important part of ASR is Active. If they’re not being actively involved, should they even be getting ASR? I say, that they shouldn’t.

All that not withstanding, that’s why Option 2 is the best option. It’s the best of both worlds - opt-in delegation for the apathetic lazy ones and direct voting for the truly aligned.

[matto]

@Kash

your DMs don’t look like my DMs then lolll

I don’t doubt you receive a lot of DMs about having too many votes along with a stack of other complaints, but that doesn’t mean the entire way we do governance needs to change to satisfy those complaints.

If voting gets too demanding, voters can simply skip a vote and it doesn’t cause a single issue whatsoever. They will still be rewarded proportionate to their level of participation.

[BlueZenith]

@Kash

Problem #1: DAO is slowed down by vote backlogs.

There are other ways to address this problem. One way would be to get all proposals out in the open much sooner than a couple of days prior to the vote going live. Post proposals 30 days out with progressively scheduled votes or concurrent votes. People are capable of discussing more than one subject at a time.

For example, CWG and UWG Budget votes are upcoming. Get the proposals posted now and put voting dates on the schedule. This is trivial. An additional benefit is that people will be able to plan accordingly versus being reactive to votes going live and ending so soon after announcement.

Of the seven backlogged votes, I count the JJWG, CWG and UWG Budgets as three and this Representative discussion as one. That makes four. What are the other three? Or are they super-duper need-to-know top secret?

[lochie2001]

Yeah I’ll be putting up a political campaign to get votes for sure

[Paba]

Really appreciate your feedback, Kash

What I had in mind with a hybrid approach is a system where vote weight or decision power is capped or distributed across tiers — not every rep having full power over everything.

For example:

Proposals could be routed through different “classes” of reps depending on scope or impact (e.g. community initiatives vs budget-heavy proposals).

Another idea: reps could have capped vote weights unless they’re re-delegated from multiple stakers over time — sort of like earning credibility dynamically.

We could also imagine “checkpoint” votes where the full DAO can veto or confirm rep-approved proposals above a certain threshold.

The goal here is to keep the agility reps offer, but inject enough transparency to avoid unintended centralization or rep fatigue.

[Morten]

I wanted to give my thoughts on this, as this proposal is one I feel very strongly about, due to my proximity to planning votes, trying to make the calendars fit into place. This is one of the most important discussions the DAO has engaged in, and its result will have massive consequence, not only for potential representatives but for everything we are trying to accomplish as a DAO.

Many of you probably know that the CWG is actively involved in planning, initiating and executing votes for the DAO. The unspoken aspect of this is the planning that goes into a vote. And trust me, there is a lot of it. We make plans and coordinate events during each vote for the specific purpose of educating the DAO voter base on a proposals contents and its existence. The goal being that everyone has a reasonable opportunity to be made aware that there is an upcoming/ongoing vote and to educate the voters about the purpose and contents of the proposal in question.

This is an immensely difficult process that requires coordination between multiple parties, multiple avenues of communication, broadcast ability, and most importantly; TIME.

TIME is something we simply do not have enough of. We often say that the DAO can be compared to an onion. It has multiple layers. The inner-most layer is the core community. They are here every day, and as such typically always know first when there’s a vote ongoing. The challenge is reaching out to the middle layers, the outer layers etc. The DAO is comprised of several different factions, and we must do our best to reach them all in our communications about ongoing votes. And as such, TIME is needed to ensure that the vote messaging reaches all layers of the onion. We also want to avoid voter-fatigue, which again adds an element of time in between votes.

Right now, as I am writing this, I do so knowing that our scheduling is already challenging. We have many improvements to governance, important initiatives that are about to lapse their funding(like for instance the grants system) and a myriad of cool things that could go to a vote, and not enough time to plan everything accordingly.

Now, how do we solve this? We do so through representatives. We do so through the Option 1. Because if we are going to use representatives we need to do so through mandatory delegation in order to leverage greater agility for voters, and this is something most larger DAO’s that have been around for a while has already figured out.

I feel very strongly that Option 1 is the right way to go, because it is the sole option that improves our agility as a DAO and enables us to make more decisions as a DAO, clear our backlog, pursue votes we otherwise couldn’t because there isn’t time etc.

[Lowkeighh]

I’m glad to see this being officially brought up after much discussion around the topic previously.

I prefer option 2 much more than option 1. Option 1 will naturally leave itself open to people complaining that Whales are controlling the outcomes of the votes when decisions don’t go the way people wanted with the proposed model, it already happens with some votes and this system will only make it worse seeing as it will only be the top 301 stakers who have a say.

Option 2 is the most decentralised way of doing this optimally, it gives everyone their own choice on how they would like to be represented and how active they would like to be while still solving the DAOs issue of needing to push votes out more frequently to clear the backlog. I also disagree with the final point in option 2, maybe at the start this will be a problem but once the system has been in place long enough, I see no reason it can’t be used to hold votes as frequently as option 1 would have.

[BlueZenith]

@Morten

The goal being that everyone has a reasonable opportunity to be made aware that there is an upcoming/ongoing vote and to educate the voters about the purpose and contents of the proposal in question.

@Morten

TIME is needed to ensure that the vote messaging reaches all layers of the onion.

If time is more of what you need then what is the purpose of opening discussion for a vote only days prior to it going live? Why not start the discussion 30 or 60 days out from the vote. That gives plenty of TIME to create awareness.

For example, schedule the upcoming (I’m assuming) Uplink Budget Proposal vote to start on July 11th. That gives you almost 6 weeks to hammer that date into peoples’ minds. Post it on the JupSync Calendar. Announce it during every Planetary Call from now until then. Post reminders on X. Everyone gets to see it nice and early and can prepare accordingly.

The way things are done now, anyone who goes on vacation for a week to ten days has the potential to miss the announcement, subsequent discussion, and entire voting window. Makes no sense.

@Morten

not enough time to plan everything accordingly

As someone who scheduled multi-millions of dollars worth of construction projects with far more moving pieces than a DAO vote, I call BS. There is plenty of time. It just needs to be utilized better.

Bottom line: If you want more time, then give yourself more time by getting out ahead of things. It really is that simple.

[Morten]

@BlueZenith

If time is more of what you need then what is the purpose of opening discussion for a vote only days prior to it going live? Why not start the discussion 30 or 60 days out from the vote. That gives plenty of TIME to create awareness.

I appreciate the thoughts. We could open discussion earlier for the votes where proposals are finalized well ahead of time, sure. That’s not a bad idea, and I will try to keep that in mind. As it relates to JupSync and vote we cannot finalize vote dates that far ahead as some votes are more time sensitive and reliant on external factors than others, and the schedule often shifts to prioritize the most pressing proposals. That is one thing that is out of my control.

@BlueZenith

As someone who scheduled multi-millions of dollars worth of construction projects with far more moving pieces than a DAO vote, I call BS. There is plenty of time. It just needs to be utilized better.

Bottom line: If you want more time, then give yourself more time by getting out ahead of things. It really is that simple.

There is truth in this, sure. We can easily run votes concurrently throughout and thus increase our decision-making speed massively. We have tried running votes closer together to one another, but complaints in regards to voter-fatigue and general confusion surrounding votes quickly became a concern. When I say we don’t have time, what I mean is that we’ve made a conscious decision to be a DAO where everyone can participate meaningfully, which means we have to cater to a lot of different user-groups, whether they’re comfortable consuming and voting on proposals rapidly or prefer a slower pace better suited to their schedule. Representatives is an attempt to increase our decision-making speed without adversely affecting any particular voter group.

[The_Lacrymator]

Hi Kash
Another thought which has come to me, what if users delegate to an individual and for some unknown reason they miss the vote? I suspect this would be less that 1% chance of happening, but what happens if it does happen? Will those who delegated miss the ASR for that vote?

[anupam_luv]

The Representative System offers a balanced solution by streamlining governance for routine matters while preserving full DAO involvement for significant decisions. It encourages leadership and accountability among Representatives and provides flexibility for stakers to participate directly when desired. However, it’s crucial to implement safeguards to ensure transparency and prevent centralization of power. Regular reviews of Representative performance and clear mechanisms for stakers to express dissent are essential.

[BlueZenith]

@Morten

we cannot finalize vote dates that far ahead as some votes are more time sensitive and reliant on external factors than others, and the schedule often shifts to prioritize the most pressing proposals.

I disagree with this. This is exactly what proper scheduling solves. Schedule the time sensitive ones first. Further, anything scheduled need not be set in stone. The schedule can be adjusted and specific proposals moved forward or back in time as needed. That’s where opening them up for discussion early proves beneficial. It provides flexibility.

Imagine if there was a standing spot on the calendar for votes such as the first Monday of every month. Or even the 1st and 15th of every month. That would be 24 slots for the year. You could fill those slots with whichever proposal is most pressing and everyone would know when the next vote is happening.

@Morten

we’ve made a conscious decision to be a DAO where everyone can participate meaningfully, which means we have to cater to a lot of different user-groups

@Morten

Representatives is an attempt to increase our decision-making speed without adversely affecting any particular voter group.

These two statements somewhat contradict each other, IMO. By moving to a mandatory representative system (Option 1) you WILL be adversely affecting a particular voting group - i.e., the group of people just like me who don’t want to delegate and want to vote on their own behalf - thus affecting our ability to participate meaningfully. That’s why Option 2 is better. It is the only option that caters to every group to some degree.

Which option caters to the most people?

Anyway, I’ve made my case and offered what I think are reasonable solutions to the point of almost becoming a pest. I’m ready to see what happens. I do hope the proposal is structured with three options:

Option 1: Representative System
Option 2: Opt-In Delegation
Option 3: No change. The system stays as-is

Ultimately, the community will decide what it wants and those that disagree with the result will either have to live with it or move on.

[bombtek]

This is probably thinking way too much into it but how do you stop corruption, for example; lets say I give my voting power to someone who is saying they are going to vote against it and a the last second they take the option for it because they are getting a kick back in some way. how do you stop that from happening?

[Morten]

@BlueZenith

This is exactly what proper scheduling solves. Schedule the time sensitive ones first. Further, anything scheduled need not be set in stone. The schedule can be adjusted and specific proposals moved forward or back in time as needed. That’s where opening them up for discussion early proves beneficial. It provides flexibility.

I’m open to creating open vote slots to fill as the schedule requires. Some votes do however come out of left field on shorter notice, which is harder to plot in advance, but some improvement could possibly be made. We do have something very similar to this internally.

@BlueZenith

These two statements somewhat contradict each other, IMO. By moving to a mandatory representative system (Option 1) you WILL be adversely affecting a particular voting group - i.e., the group of people just like me who don’t want to delegate and want to vote on their own behalf - thus affecting our ability to participate meaningfully. That’s why Option 2 is better. It is the only option that caters to every group to some degree.

I guess that’s true, although if you want your opinion to be reflected in each vote you can simply select a delegate that votes in the direction you want your vote to reflect. Option 2 does not provide an option in which we can run votes faster and with less broadcast saturation, which is really the time-consuming part of running a vote in the DAO right now. Alternatively you could attempt to become a representative yourself.

@BlueZenith

Option 1: Representative System
Option 2: Opt-In Delegation
Option 3: No change. The system stays as-is

I think this is the likely structure of the options, but I don’t know just yet.

[BlueZenith]

@Morten

if you want your opinion to be reflected in each vote you can simply select a delegate that votes in the direction you want your vote to reflect

Except then I would have to defend two fronts. First, I would have to get up to speed on the proposal at hand AND I would have to vet a delegate that could potentially still screw me over and vote opposite my wishes.

Just to play devil’s advocate, what happens when all 301 delegates come out in support of a proposal and declare their intention to vote “FOR”, yet, you want to vote “AGAINST”? There could theoretically NOT be a delegate that will cast a vote the way you want.

Ultimately, I don’t trust delegates to do what they say and I don’t believe I should have to.

Further, I have no desire to be a delegate and have to stump for others’ voting rights.

I believe it is possible to run votes faster with the current system. Things just need to be done better.

[julianhzhu]

While I understand the need to speed up decision making, I also still feel that Option 2 is more appealing because it allows interested voters to have a more direct way to participate.

It’s definitely a difficult choice between the two.