Here we could have some kind of transparent voting display. Showing after the vote ends, what each delegate voted for..so that we can all see if the delegates voted as we wanted them to vote :D..could be a solution..but yea, i agree thst option 2 is more flexible and more appropriate..but still has to come with some specific rules tho.
2 Likes
I think that Delegation (Option 2) will work better. If you trust someoneâs opinion you can just delegate your votes and thatâs it.
1 Like
And if they havenât, by then it could be too late.
Delegation creates more problems than it solves, IMO.
2 Likes
Totally fair point. A âNo Changeâ or true âAbstainâ option could help capture the full sentiment spectrum.
Maybe the vote format can evolve to reflect that nuance better. But I still see value in checking vibes from the community before taking next steps â better than top-down decisions all the time imo.
1 Like
..budget limit is a good point
1 Like
Delegating votes makes things more centralized - essentially opting in to give more voting power to fewer people
I can see how itâll make things more efficient without burdening everyone with seeing who gets paid what when it comes to WG proposalsâŚbut it doesnât solve (what i think) is the root of the issue.
it doesnât answer how the numbers (what WGs are being paid etc) are agreed upon before going up for a yes/no vote
it doesnât solve ASR producing diminishing returns every quarter.
Also, with how ASR is currently structured, it does not encourage stakers/voters to actively promote others to vote - your potential share of ASR is smaller as more and more people vote. I think this misalignment needs to be solved first and may potentially alleviate a lot of the FUD we see when these kind of proposals come up.
1 Like
correct, if you delegate to someone who doesnât vote, you wouldnât get ASR in either option.
creates a natural incentive to ensure people are still paying some attention, or otherwise delegating only to those who are actively involved and can be relied upon to continue voting.
1 Like
all conversations/proposals in Option 1 would remain public on Jup Research forums, so those who want to be engaged can still be engaged. Further, theyâd be posted about in the Jupiter DAO twitter page and on Discord.
re: centralization: no one is âlosingâ their voting power in Option 1, since they can re-delegate to someone voting with their same opinion. but yes, the trade-off is that we can move faster and get more done, at the cost of not requiring a very large number of people to participate.
imo, thatâs a great trade to make, but reasonable minds can differ ofc.
re: the numbers being agreed upon - that would happen during the proposal formation process (posted on Jup Research â Vibe Check â Vote)
re: ASR diminishing - i hear you on that. i wouldnât call it misalignment necessarily, but i see where youâre coming from. however, Iâm not sure how weâd fix it. i suppose we could put like a fixed yield, but that will only further increase emissions, the exact thing that token holders are already concerned about. open to other ideas though!
1 Like
yup, agreed that taking vibes from the community is important! hence this very discussion.
weâre also actively working on a Vibe Check portal that would let the community get a sense of how voters are feeling, without triggering a full-on vote.
and yes if this goes to a vote eventually, we will include an option for âNo Changeâ
would definitely include a âno changeâ option, if this was to go to a vote.
which is fundamentally different than âAbstainâ, since âAbstainâ means âi have no opinionâ, vs âNo changeâ showcases that your opinion is to keep things the same.
nuanced but important difference, said from the #1 abstain hater out here lol
thanks for the reply kash, i know youâre a busy cat
re: Losing voting power was never a thought that crossed my mind. I was just thinking some people whoâd delegate their votes probably delegated because they donât want to keep up with updates and voting, but still qualify for ASR. This could potentially mean more people (who may not care about the outcome) participate in voting because you can just set it and forget it. Not saying that all cats whoâd choose to delegate would be like this, but there will definitely be some! If this scenario does play out, cats who may not care about governance get rewarded, and cats who do care get less. Iâm also assuming that the level of communication and information given to the community on any given proposal remains the same then vs now. Like, all of the numbers would still be out there to see if youâre looking for it.
re: i had no idea about the proposal formation process. Thanks for le info. Just started frequenting jupresearch more. Could we get dark mode pwease? Light mode hurts loool!
re: i am NOT against WGs getting paid. I wanna start with that lol. I donât know specifically why so much fud pops off within the community when it comes to these wg/budget votes; I can only speak for myself. I know emissions need to happen to eventually get 100% supply of tokens in circulation. I think even if ASR is increased from letâs say 200M to 300M per year, this entire convo will probably happen again later in the future. Cuz greed. Splitting the pie mentality would also still exist. Increasing ASR could actually increase sell pressure too because the shortest amount of time youâd have to wait before you can sell is 30 days from the time you unstake your auto-staked JUP from ASR, vs a WG who got JUP but has 1 year vesting.
A fixed yield would make emission scheduling a bit unpredictable, and could really increase emissions and sell pressure too.
To be honest, I currently have no ideas to present. I have read some X posts about including USDC or SOL as part of ASR (no idea about the legalities behind this or where it is funded fromâŚportion of jupSOL fees?). I wonder to myself when reading some posts if they ever factored getting pengu and huma (and past LFGs) as part of their ASR yield calculation. I know âsplitting the pieâ mentality is small potatoes thinking because the priority should be to grow the jupiverse and that should take $JUP with it. I just hate that its even a thought in the back of my mind lol
thanks for reading if you got to the end
p.s.: w3n your face as jup mobile bg option?
1 Like
So then Mortenâs was incorrect here and thus his logic about making things âfasterâ wouldnât apply, would it? His argument was:
Seems like that wouldnât change. So then what exactly would make it âfasterâ?
I personally think moving to more of a representative republic is inarguably less democratic, but could work with very elaborate rules and guidelinesâŚ
e.g. at minimum Iâd like to see a large amount of reps, terms & term limits, and a recall & replace method
Optional delegation is preferable, but I still like the way it is now the best lol.
Presumably, you will still have to allow TIME for representatives to have âa reasonable opportunity to be made aware that there is an upcoming/ongoing vote and to eductate [them] about the purpose and contents of the proposal in questionâ.
If you feel this can be done faster to a group of representatives, I would suggest you are pandering too much to the rest of the DAO community.
Part of ASR is that it is meant to be a reward for staying active and involved. We shouldnât expect that everyone can achieve that, hence why it is a reward rather than a default payout to all stakers. If voters canât stay up to speed, thats on them.
Im all for a more streamlined voting process. But I think that can easily be achieved without the need for representatives. Ideaâs like those suggested about scheduling votes well in advance block voting, etc. Then it is up to the individuals in the DAO to stay actively engaged. For those who fully engage, they will be rewarded by ASR approproiately. For those who dont, they wonât.
Personally Iâd prefer neither option 1 or 2 and that we stick with our current system. Worst case scenario, I would support option 2 over option 1 as I dont want to hand over the only real benefit of holding JUP (governance power) to someone else.
1 Like