Hello @kash,
Really appreciate the time you took to reply, it’s always awesome to see this kind of open dialogue happening around the DAO.
Wanted to follow up with a few more thoughts and clarifications based on your detailed responses. Thanks again for engaging so openly!
Decentralization vs. Independence
Totally agree with the distinction you made — decentralization is about widespread participation, and we clearly have that with all the voters and voices.
That said, the DAO today doesn’t yet have autonomy. It’s the team that sets the voting agenda, chooses the proposals, and filters what gets discussed. In practice, the DAO can’t vote on what goes to a vote — which means governance is still bottlenecked.
This isn’t a critique, just an observation — and one I think we’re both aligned on. Independence takes time, and I’m glad that’s part of the long-term vision. But right now, it’s worth acknowledging we’re decentralized in numbers, but not yet in direction.
Voting Is Sacred, But Selective
Yes, selective voting makes sense — but I’d ask: in a future where the DAO is autonomous, who decides what gets filtered in or out of a vote? Will the filtering process itself be voted on?
We’re not working within fixed-term cycles like political systems (e.g. electing reps for 4 or 5 years), and there are no built-in mechanisms for replacing or holding “representatives” accountable.
Another model to consider is corporate governance: shareholders vote directly on strategic issues, including board members and major actions. Maybe there’s a hybrid model to explore here for DAOs, where stakeholders can vote or delegate with more fluidity and transparency.
On Risk & Experimentation
I love your metaphor: “Ships are safest in harbor, but that’s not what ships are for.”
That said, I think the balance here is between experimentation and strategy. It’s not about playing it safe, but about having a compass before setting sail. Without a shared destination, even bold experiments can lose momentum or impact.
Perhaps a system of rapid experimentation but with clear feedback loops could work:
→ try fast,
→ learn fast,
→ course correct fast.
But still with a framework that keeps the long-term mission in view.
Transparency vs. Inclusion
The $10K threshold is a solid start — but I’d go one step further and suggest creating “DAO Auditors” or “DAO Stewards”, people elected or selected to verify that funded proposals are delivering on their objectives.
This could boost trust without adding heavy bureaucracy. Small contributors could feel safer knowing they’re entering a system that checks work fairly, without naming-and-shaming.
Transparency doesn’t need to be scary — if done right, it creates confidence for everyone.
Work Group Formation
Glad to hear you’re open to feedback on this. My observation is that many groups seem to form based on Twitter or Discord circles, rather than clearly identified needs in the ecosystem.
This is natural, humans work with people they know. But is it the most effective way to build DAO structure?
It might be worth asking:
Are groups forming to solve actual ecosystem needs, or are they forming first and then looking for something to work on?
One idea could be to start with a public “needs registry”, a list of DAO pain points or goals, and invite people to form groups around those.
Core Team Dependence
Agree 100% that there’s no “free lunch”, but also that dependence needs a transition plan.
Nobody’s asking for chaos or that everyone does what they want, autonomy doesn’t mean anarchy.
Why not define specific milestones where certain responsibilities are passed from the team to the DAO?
Gradual decentralization with guardrails is totally possible, and I believe that’s what we’re all aiming for anyway.
Roadmap & Milestones
Really appreciate your openness here, and I agree it’s hard to predict the future. Still, not having concrete milestones leaves the DAO in a reactive mode.
We can set targets without binding ourselves to exact dates.
Think of it like having a North Star — the routes may change, storms may delay progress, but we still know where we’re trying to go.
Lastly, just wanted to add:
This is just my personal take, and I want to sincerely thank everyone who’s worked so hard on building the Jupiter Network so far, huge respect. I fully support this vision and am excited to see where it leads.
Just sharing my thoughts with a critical mindset to help the DAO grow,
not to downplay the incredible work already done or what’s coming next.
- I’m here to help, not to criticize for the sake of it.
- If anyone thinks I’m against the project — that’s not the case.
- I’m 100% committed to JUP’s success.
- I’m not a yes-man, and I won’t just agree with everything…
- …especially not for free meals or future perks.
Let’s keep it real and build this the right way, together.
You can also find some of my ideas around how the DAO could gain more autonomy in my proposal:
DAO Proposal - Reward Long-Term Stakers & Build Real Yield
Happy to chat with anyone about what a truly autonomous DAO might look like.
Thanks again @kash for taking the time, always happy to share input and an outside perspective to help the DAO integrate better with stakers and grow stronger together. If you’re ever open to ideas, I’d be glad to contribute thoughts on how we can shape a truly autonomous and sustainable DAO!
To all a big 
@Rodrigues770471