Good take, that’s why the articles evaluate why Quadratic Governance could work. Although requiring 70% of wallets to approve the poll would just make us more vulnerable to Sybil attacks.
Another take could be implementing Quadratic governance but making ASR rewards higher once you pass certain $JUP threshold.
Badges as Non-Tradable-NFTs would be amazing. Similar to the ones delivered on planetary calls.
The forum is a good start since it already gives you achievements for being active, knowledgeable, etc.
Thank you for taking your time to response! I wouldn´t mind running a beta of Quadratic Voting with a simple poll to evaluate how the community behaves towards this change. Although running a test would take significant resources to perform.
We shouldn´t be afraid to try out new stuff.
Hope the offer gets considered. At least it will provide valuable insight and data to compare with the status quo.
I mean, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it right? Why complicate?
I got from it it’s broken and needs fixing. Is what I think also. At the very least a balance needs to be found.
Quadratic governance is an interesting idea for Jupiter DAO, and I can see how it could make things fairer by closing the gap between whales and average community members. As someone in the top 1% of stakers, I can understand the power imbalance—right now, those with a lot of JUP have too much control over the DAO. A system ensuring everyone’s voice is heard more equally would be a step forward.
That said, there are some significant challenges. Issues like KYC, multi-wallet abuse, and collusion are hard to solve. People could still find ways to manipulate the system, and implementing identity verification checks could contradict the decentralized values we aim to uphold.
If there were a vote on this, I would probably prefer to stick with the current system. KYC is exhausting.
You are correct the imbalance is real and difficult to overcome. I made a proposal in this topic Is the Dao really decentralised / voting power!
It may not be 100% perfect but it would I believe make it very hard for people to game the system. Especially if combined with what @Zzullerr is suggesting.
You realise whales can split their JUP into thousands of wallets right? 
You just make it enough work for them to not make it worth the effort.
Whales are whales because they are better than you at making money.
They will find a way and out work you.
In a decentralised system the Dao needs to be done right. Having whales with more voting power by splitting up wallets or by having more voting power with the current system is both not good. This is how it organically evolved and it can evolve in a different direction with enough thought.
That my friend is a falsehood
JUP is the best DAO in crypto.
The DAO works so well we have people like you trying to change the system in their favour to benefit them. If the DAO was “done wrong” and we all agreed on all matters there would not be a discussion on changing governance to quadratic. Evidence that the DAO is working as intended.
I think it was self evident in the last votes that the entire Dao was working on self interest and not what is best for the long term growth of one of the largest exchanges in decentralised crypto. If Jupiter sets a very high bar we might just might get crypto back to what it was intended for. Non inflammatory currency and decentralised governance. Jupiter in my view is half way there.
Also I feel you are on the attack rather than discussing the situation with me. Why is that?
There is no situation you’re making one up.
87% approval for Jupuary in 2025 and 2026. DAO voted on what is best for long term, there are no issues or situations with the DAO in regards to voting power. Whales will split their JUP into thousands of wallets if you wanted to go with anything other than linear voting power and you get the same “situation” again with “imbalance” - even worse this time as people will say whales have the JUP split up and are manipulating every vote because you don’t know which wallets are whales and the DAO votes instantly becomes a joke as there isn’t 1 vote per wallet but massive whale clusters. We are voting on matters related to $JUP, hence the amount of JUP people stake matters, rather logical and fair.
Glad we can discuss it. Please have a look at the link where we propose a solution to this. Is the Dao really decentralised / voting power!
Maybe you were not here when we talked about thé Jupuary over the last months, but it was very clear that there where two camps. Stakers and exchange users. It also became obvious to everyone because of the nature of what was being discussed (airdrop that is by in itself subject to self interest) it was extremely difficult to get to a point, whereby finally over 70% could agree.
It showed all of us that in some situations a group of people could change the vote in their favour.
Exsample it was better realistically that Jupiter exchange got more users onboarded via airdrop than giving it to stakers. Yet the proposals in the beginning favoured large stakers. Even though they were covered by other rewards already. Most large stakers voted against the first proposal. They finally only voted yes because they were included in the drop. Also it would be very easy for someone or several people who are competitors say of Jupiter with very large capital to control voting of the Dao in it’s current state. So you can see that it might warrant changing.
With someone with Btc in their name you definitely should understand this better than most.
We boldly claim JUP DAO is the best DAO. Truth to be told, I envision the best DAO in Web3 to constantly try new governance methods.
We won’t really know until we try it, we can try it out with low-importance polls.
Agreed just because something is not perfect doesn’t mean it can’t be improved on even if it is a lot better than most. Thank you for starting this topic. I just hope others join in to discuss this further and see it’s in their interest to loose some voting power.
