Implement A Tiered Voting Structure for DAO Governance

Proposals
1

JUP Article
JUP Article1500×600 54.8 KB

This article walks-through how we could structure more modular, transparent DAO proposals in the future. I’m using the current Jup & Juice proposal as an example — not because I expect it to change, but because it’s a useful case study. These kinds of proposals are going to keep coming, and it’s worth thinking about how we handle them going forward.

The Problem With One-Size-Fits-All Voting

Right now, many proposals ask voters to decide on everything in one go:

  • Should we approve the team?

  • Should we fund them for a year?

  • Should we also give them a token bonus?

  • Should we assume they’ll hit their goals?

But those are separate questions. Bundling them into a single vote forces people to either say yes to things they might not agree with — or reject a proposal they mostly support just to block a piece they don’t.

That kind of structure makes voting frustrating and limits trust in the process.

A Tiered Model: What It Could Look Like

This model breaks proposals into separate parts, each voted on individually. Some parts are conditional on others passing — so there’s structure, but also flexibility.

Everything would still be voted on during the same proposal cycle. Voters would see all four parts — working group approval, budget, bonus, and KPIs — laid out at once, and would cast separate votes on each. The difference is that each section stands on its own and only takes effect if the parts it depends on are approved. So while the voting happens at the same time, the outcomes are conditional, not bundled.

Let’s take the JUP & Juice proposal as a real-world example of how it could work.

Part A: Should JUP & Juice become a Core Working Group?

This is the foundational vote. If it doesn’t pass, the rest of the proposal doesn’t move forward.

Vote: Yes / No / Abstain Threshold: X majority of staked

If rejected: No budget, no bonus — the proposal ends here.

Part B: Should the DAO approve a $282,000 USDC budget?

Only considered if Part A passes. Breakdown:

  • $246K to team compensation

  • $36K to operations and tools

This gives voters a chance to support the WG while still having a say on how much they’re funded.

Part C: Should the DAO approve a 355K

Only considered if both A and B pass.

This is where alignment of incentives come in.

  • Tokens are held in a DAO-controlled wallet

  • Locked for 12 months

  • Only released if the team meets clear performance targets

Part D: Should we approve the KPI framework for releasing the bonus?

If the DAO wants to grant a bonus, it also needs to define the expectations.

Sample KPIs could include:

  • 10M verified video impressions

  • 15 ecosystem partnerships

  • Strong engagement + community growth

  • Monthly transparency reports

Structure:

  • 50% of tokens can unlock at 6 months

  • 50% at 12 months

  • DAO votes at each checkpoint to approve or deny release

If goals aren’t met, the tokens unlock back to the DAO treasury.

Voting Experience

  • All four parts appear in a single proposal interface

  • Voters cast Yes, No, or Abstain for each part

  • Abstain = neutral (counts for ASR but not outcome)

  • Skipping a part = no vote, no reward

  • Voting power = staked, just like today

Why This Model Works Better

  • Voters get more control — and more clarity

  • Teams get clear direction from the DAO

  • The DAO keeps incentives tied to actual results

  • Bonus tokens don’t move unless the work gets done

This isn’t about making things more complicated — it’s about aligning incentives and giving people real options when they vote.

– LFG Whale

2

Welcome to the research forum. Interesting ideas to consider in the future. Most of the criticism faced is people who feel inconvenienced by needing to vote on things they do not care about. Itemizing it and requiring them to read more or think more could just make them more disgruntled. But lets imagine we have an ideal audience of voters, theeen your ‘tiered voting’ is an interesting idea worth exploring, as you concluded “More control, More clarity”… I think alot of spite also comes from feeling like things are out of people’s hands, atleast this way too, the team and DAO could identify which parts of proposals people are really voting for, and which parts they aren’t as fond of. Maybe all are averaged to determine an outcome and we use the tiered system purely for a feedback system. OR… each part of the proposal becomes open to voting outcomes and its own ammendment system, if people vote no to the budget, then it needs to be ammended, but this could end up in a toxic spiralling situation where people who have already sacraficed other jobs are forced into underpaid labor by a sort of inverse union lol.

3 Likes
3

Thats what i was trying to say to @Kash that rush feelings will not improve dao. Need do step by step if dao need ne healthy.

4

Appreciate the thoughtful take.

Totally agree that voter fatigue is real — and forcing people to read through itemized components they don’t care about could backfire if we overcomplicate things.

That said, part of the current frustration (and even apathy) seems to stem from voters feeling like they’re boxed into all-or-nothing decisions. The tiered approach isn’t just about adding complexity — it’s about giving people clearer choices and reducing those “I voted yes, but I didn’t mean that” moments.

You bring up a great point about how voting outcomes could double as feedback signals, even if they’re not always binding. That could help working groups refine proposals without triggering full rejection spirals or undercutting contributor compensation.

To avoid the “inverse union” risk (which is a great way to put it, btw), maybe bonus or budget tiers could be pre-negotiated ranges rather than open-ended amounts — something like “vote between option A or B,” rather than letting it collapse to zero.

The goal isn’t to make DAO voting harder — just more transparent and effective. I’d love to explore hybrid models like the ones you suggested.

1 Like
5

Totally agree that nothing should be rushed. It’s good that we are having conversations about how the voting process might be improved, though.

What’s your sentiment on the idea of tiered voting like I have suggested?

2 Likes
6

Careful consideration is needed, Thoughtful approach to enhance transparency and voter control. By breaking proposals into distinct parts—working group approval, budget, bonus, and KPIs—it allows voters to support specific elements without endorsing everything. Conditional dependencies ensure logical progression, and the model ties incentives to measurable outcomes, like KPIs for token releases. This reduces voter frustration, aligns team incentives, and strengthens trust in the process. It’s a practical step toward modular, results-driven governance, though implementation complexity needs careful consideration. Overall, a promising framework for fairer DAO decisions.

2 Likes
7

I think its how suppose be. :thinking: otherwice DAO does not meaning much.

  • they want autonomy wich become as Centralized system.
    Bu even if we talk about fast way upgrade and evolution of DAO - its does not mean autonomy. Its mean CLARITY. we need better communication to have faster way approves the projects.
2 Likes
8

Totally agree — it’s not about slowing things down or adding red tape. It’s about clarity.

If we structure votes better, people understand what they’re supporting, teams know where the community stands, and things can actually move faster, not slower.

Appreciate your comments and perspective for the big picture.

1 Like
9

Really appreciate this breakdown — you captured the intent perfectly.

The goal isn’t just more options, it’s better alignment: clear outcomes, accountable incentives, and less frustration for both voters and contributors.

Totally agree that implementation needs care, but the upside feels worth it. Thanks for the thoughtful read.

3 Likes
10

this is actually really, really thoughtful - i will think about it and bring it up as well.

on top of this, i tink we super need foundational votes, proper pay tiers, and then also a refocusing of the dao votes

i don’t think we need go super low down into details, but it’s important

6 Likes
11

Bundling…Increased voter participation likely in a tiered system. Juice worth the squeeze? can be done efficiently and effectively ?

2 Likes
12

This is the way! Got my support

1 Like
13

thanks man for taking the time to understand my response appreciate it. good luck getting some more perspectives and appreciate you putting your thoughts out there.

2 Likes
14

This is a genuine observation, and it add real value to how we approach proposal. It’s also worth noting how clearly you articulated it. Observations are one thing, but giving them context so others can understand and benefit from them is a whole other skill.
You did both here :saluting_face: noticed the detail and explained why it matters. I hope the system can work on this and implement it on the next vote proposal

JUP is Home :green_heart:

2 Likes
15

I like this idea of a tiered voting structure

If voter fatigue really is a thing tho, it’ll turn one proposal (currently) into 3 or 4 proposals which will exacerbate the issue (if it really is an issue)

I personally don’t think voter fatigue is an issue tho - it shouldn’t even be an issue to solve because ASR is there to promote active participation in governance.

I do think that how ASR is currently structured is a problem. It doesn’t encourage people to actively promote voting to others.

Your share of the pie is bigger when less people vote on a proposal that you voted on.

2 Likes
16

Thanks for this. The cool idea with this is we don’t necessarily need to queue up four separate votes. Because the items for consideration are connected, voters would vote on all the items at the same time. The ballot, as I will call the vote interface, would have each item sequentially listed. For some, a breakout like this may be viewed as annoying, but I think most would view the ability to approve line items in this manner as a net positive. Appreciate your support.

1 Like
17

i agree that the ability to approve line items is a positive

ultimately i don’t think changing how these kind of proposals are delivered to the community will stop the ensuing FUD tho

2 Likes
18

Totally agree that nothing should be rushed.

1 Like
19

thats true actually. i like that. i dont like yes or no for somehting people not understand anyways. but they have to vote for it. give the folk more options.

1 Like
20

A tiered voted structure would be cool

But as we all know would trigger a lot of people and that’s something we need to avoid

1 Like