Great porposal !
Why using 120M and not a fixed pourcentage of the total staked JUP?
3 Likes
Amazing article as always. In order not to keep keep voting on this and free time to move more meaningful decisions in the future, a quorum of 30% will over all reflect the truest intentions of the community.
2 Likes
I think the last vote is pointless, because you will always get 100% success as long as you incentivize with rewards and as long as the changes are submitted to the vote by team members, not by people. On the other hand, you could make not a threshold for voting, but a threshold for agreeing or disagreeing (First, a vote for accepting the topic for voting, and if the threshold is passed, then a vote on the topic.) by several metrics:
What do you think about it ?
for example:
First, like or dislike ā 1) If you like ā access to the choice of voting options, 2) If you donāt like ā the vote is taken into account, end of voting.
And then draw conclusions based on the difference between like/dislike about accepting or not accepting a vote (this will be a vote by the number of wallets, 1 wallet - 1 vote), and then, if like, then the vote will be by the number of coins.
In this case, they will be the approximate number of interested/uninterested people and will not be tied to the quorum
3 Likes
In this case it would very likely become a bot war, like on social networks.
2 Likes
The growth of DAOs is great news, and increasing the circulating supply is the logical solution. increase the requirement for a higher quorum accordingly. That being said, why 120 million votes? Setting a fixed number would require constant adjustments, requiring changes in the electoral system over time. I agree with the need for an increase, but I think it would be more effective to do it as a percentage of the vote on each ballot.
4 Likes
30% seems a bit too low of a threshold, but still makes more sense than another fixed number of shares voted threshold, which could become skewed and impact a proposal before we are able to adjust it again
4 Likes
That these are the only two options seems strange to me. A dynamic value clearly makes more sense than a fixed number, but doing it by overall amount of staked JUP means that a smaller number of the biggest holders could achieve a quorum without mass support. Would be far more egalitarian for it to be a percentage of the number of stakers than a percentage of staked JUP.
It seems most people intuitively see that a dynamic value is better than a fixed one, but arent noticing this nuance which makes Option 2 more beneficial to whales at the expense of small holders, so it seems likely to win. But I think Ill need to abstain in protest that there isnt a variety of dynamic options to choose from.
2 Likes
Just because a small number of holders could have enough jup to reach quorum does not mean the rest of the community canāt vote on that same proposal. Yes, letās imagine, somehow, theyāll end up letās say voting 120mil for something ā¦ but we have 430mil total locked jupā¦ the majority can still vote no and win.
2 Likes
for me the answer is easyā¦ I return to this way of thinking quite often
If PPP was a person what would they do?
2 Likes
voted on an increase to 120m, good proposal thanks
2 Likes
Go and vote guys! LFGšŖšæ
2 Likes
Iām bellieve setting the quorum to 30% of total staked $JUP to be the right decision. Reaching the quorum is key to making sure that votes are not gridlocked and will increase the speed with which the DAO can adjust on the fly without compromising the integrity of the vote.
2 Likes
Great. Send it!! LFG
2 Likes
It is great, i think 120 million is easy
2 Likes
Hi Team
So just my 2 jups on the matter.
Option 3 could propose a issue for large player control if a lot of people unstake their JUPā¦ 30% seems too little, i would recommend 51% making a lot of sense. If anyone disagreeās with this, please let me know, as iād love to know why not.
2 Likes
Both options work imo, with the increase of the DAO after every ASR a fixed % would automatically adjust the % as the voting power increase when $JUP rewards are being auto-staked. People that keep their tokens locked will be motivated to use their growing rights more as their long term incentives for the JUP DAO is growing with each vote and therefor they know better whats going on in the eco system.
2 Likes
A fixed % of the Staked Jup at the time of the Vote sounds most effective to me. I voted the 30% If Staked Jup doubles then the quorum number will have to double as well. Too high a % say 80% Clearly would have negative effect as most proposals would have Extreme difficulty reaching the number. We could vote again if it seems 30% is too easily reached in the future. which I feel it should be closer to 51%
3 Likes
If stake decreases, say in a downturn the 30% automatically would be a Lower number in that case.
2 Likes
I definitely think that this should be revised as each new J.U.P DAO is voted on until a standard is met or until itās averages out to a sustainable number. Having said that I also believe it should be a percent of the staked J.U.P as to make a definitive count on any issue voted on in the future. However I think that at such an early time it would dissuade people from voting or rather people who donāt have much stake wouldnt want to vote thinking theirs wouldnāt make a difference. To be totally fair I think it should be raised to the 120m so that more people feel their violate has been counted. And should be revisited in the future to be clear the numbers will add together properly to represent everyone, and not just the few.
120m ā
30%. ā
2 Likes
30% was the logic. It makes more sense to have a moving number than to fix it. As the number of stakes increases, the number of votes will increase. Even 50% is possible.
4 Likes