The Next 2 Years: DAO Resolution Pt.1

Jupiter DAO
42

Longtime JUP user, and I’m in top 0.1% of stakers. I’m an idiot but have skin in the game.

JUP team ships like no one else, it’s nuts. meow and Kash are def invested and have their hearts in the right place.

I still don’t know JUP’s intrinsic value.

Every single time I read one of these posts I feel like I’m talking to HR or reading an org chart.

Please explain to us the tangible benefit of JUP in 3 sentences or less, without saying ‘DAO DAO DAO’ or ‘PPP PPP PPP’. Because, while generally I like the premise (and appreciate all the work) with this DAO Resolution, I still don’t get it.

5 Likes
43

Maybe the biggest problem is calling it a DAO which it clearly is not at this point in time. This leads many to have expectations about what they think it should be rather than what it is.

We can start calling it a DAO once a certain level of autonomy is reached.

Just a thought.

3 Likes
44

Have you read the suggestions re: $jup utility by @ihateoranges (they have replied to this thread twice, and imo these are the types of concrete initiatives that should be explored/implemented)?

4 Likes
45

Bingo.

I would have no problem if the team was like….ahhhhhhhhkkkschually the DAO will just be a supportive arm (for now, re-evaluate in 6mo, 1yr, etc)…but we will implement all of the real $jup utility measures as described by many folks in various posts on JR.

Hybrid governance seems to be the way forward for now.

1 Like
46

I have - it’s very well put and I agree with nearly everything @ihateoranges had to say. In fact I think I posted about his/her reply on X

2 Likes
47

Looking at the DAO Resolution Vote Calendar, it’s clear this is being fast-tracked:

Discord AMA on April 19

Voting starts April 20

Ends April 24

That’s barely a few days between discussion and decision — for a resolution that’s meant to define how the DAO and the team will co-exist for the next two years. This process doesn’t reflect decentralization. It reflects a predetermined outcome with just enough “community calls” to check the optics box.

Where is the space for real alignment? For mutual framework-building between the team and the DAO? The current resolution gives no real empowerment, no clear $JUP utility, and continues to lock key levers like the Litterbox Trust away from the community until 2027. Many members — myself included — have raised thoughtful counterpoints, ideas, and proposals. But instead of discussing those openly, we’re now watching a marketing-style sprint toward a yes vote.

And frankly? I can smell fear.
It looks like the team is afraid of where this conversation might lead if it continues. They see the pushback, they see that the community wants more than passive grant management and token dilution. So instead of co-authoring a shared vision with the DAO, they’re rushing to cement their version of “decentralization” before anyone can rewrite the script.

This isn’t what decentralization looks like.
If this resolution is so foundational, let’s take the time to get it right. Let’s discuss, iterate, amend — not rush through it like a PR campaign. Otherwise, this vote becomes yet another example of how power is being concentrated behind the scenes, while the DAO is expected to cheer and comply.

I urge the team and working groups to pause this vote.
Reopen dialogue.
Put a real framework on the table — one that empowers the DAO now, not in two years.
And if the team truly isn’t afraid of decentralization, prove it. Collaborate with us instead of controlling the timeline.

— @ihateoranges

3 Likes
48

DAO will have more clarity if this gets adopted.

1 Like
49

I appreciate your perspective — clarity is always valuable. But let’s not confuse clarity with control.

This resolution was supposed to be an invitation — a moment for the DAO and the team to collaborate on a shared framework for the future. Instead, it’s shaping up to be a leash. A way to contain the DAO, not empower it. We’re being handed a document that limits our power, kicks real autonomy two years down the road, and wraps it in inspirational language to make it palatable.

That’s not clarity — that’s narrative management.

It feels less like the birth of a decentralized ecosystem, and more like a clever rerun of 1984 — where power structures are masked by slogans and participation is mistaken for freedom. We’re told we have a voice, but only within the walls built for us. We’re told we’re governing, but the real levers are held tightly by the team.

In the end, it’s not about building a DAO.
It’s about making the DAO look like it’s already been built — so the community stops asking uncomfortable questions.

And I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not be part of a herd marching happily into the slaughterhouse just because someone’s playing a song.

1 Like
50

Thank you @Kash for your valuable efforts :clap:
The idea of talent networks really resonated with me, it’s a strong and promising direction.
A question that comes to mind: how does the DAO plan to ensure the emergence of new voices, rather than having proposals circulate among the same recurring names?

51

I’m thrilled about the potential of the DAO ratification, particularly for those who hold $JUP long-term. Meow has always emphasized the importance of experimenting, learning, and growing, and I genuinely believe we’ve achieved that together. The principles outlined in this draft directly address some of the key friction points we’ve experienced as a community.

Personally, I’m incredibly interested in the section on new community leaders (cue my mischievous “evil grin”)—not just for the excitement it holds for the community but also for the opportunity it presents for me to find my lane and contribute in a meaningful way. It’s these discussions and reflections that have weighed on my mind, and I’m eager to tackle them alongside this passionate community.

1 Like
52

The post highlights that direct democracy isn’t ideal for every decision. How should the DAO structure delegation or sub-committees (like Work Groups) to maintain decentralization while improving decision-making efficiency? What safeguards should be in place to prevent centralization of power?

53

Couldn’t agree more with you. Even though I participated in the planetary call and read the jup.research post, I still don’t find it clear in what direction we are going. Something as important as the decision how the DAO and the team will co-exist in the upcoming 2 years is not something that should be rushed imo. I really really hope the team takes a look at our opinions so we can all get some more time to discuss the topics.

3 Likes
54

La mejor DAO del planeta Tierra y del planeta JUPITER
:right_arrow_curving_up::four::right_arrow_curving_up::ringed_planet::smiling_cat_with_heart_eyes::p_button::p_button::p_button:

1 Like
55

There has been such good critical feedback on this proposal, keep it up! This is what ultimately leads to the best versions.

If a proposal cannot stand up or address criticism, is it really that good?

We may not always like the answers, but that’s part of the iterative process. I’m excited to see how this proposal progresses.

2 Likes
56

Let’s Call It What It Is: A Proposal to Rename the Jupiter DAO

The term DAO — Decentralized Autonomous Organization — carries weight. It implies self-governance, autonomy, community decision-making, and shared power over a protocol’s evolution and resources. But the resolution put forward by the team paints a very different picture. One where the so-called DAO is funded by the team, led by the team, governed by the team, and — eventually, maybe — allowed a bit more breathing room in 2027.

If we’re being honest, that’s not a DAO. That’s not even close.

So I propose that we stop calling it that. Let’s adopt a name that reflects what this structure actually is. I propose:

Jupiter Community Growth Collective (JCGC)

Definition: A structured, team-supported initiative composed of community members focused on promoting Jupiter’s products, producing educational content, organizing engagement efforts, and helping grow Jupiter’s reach across the broader ecosystem. The Collective operates with guidance and funding from the Jupiter team, and may receive limited governance responsibilities over non-core aspects of the protocol.

This name does a few important things:

It removes the illusion of governance where none currently exists.

It aligns expectations around what the community is here to do — support growth and amplify the brand.

It leaves the door open for future evolution without making false promises about autonomy today.

Let’s stop confusing participation with power. If this resolution is the official direction for the next two years, then clarity should be our top priority. Mislabeling a team-controlled structure as a DAO only creates frustration, disillusionment, and division.

If the Jupiter team truly envisions a DAO in the future, we’ll get there through trust, transparency, and earned decentralization — not through titles we haven’t earned yet.

Let’s speak plainly. Let’s align words with reality.
Call it what it is.

— @ihateoranges

1 Like
57

YESS, voters don’t need to be involved with payment talks, salaries are to be handled by the team, keep the voters fun and simple

LFG

1 Like
58

Hello,

I have read the proposal and i’m agreed with most of it

Even if i would like to have the possibility to vote on the future of the buybacks each bi-yearly / Yearly.

I mean, we should vote on them to know if we want to increase ASR with it or burn it.

Also i would like to see a counter part formed by the community to discuss and iterate with the team regarding the vote proposed. Always in the 50/50 community.

The DAO needs to reflect the community and vote have to be co-created.

Concerning the ASR, We don’t talk about it and the decreasing rewards who making for a lot of investors a not good R/R who will lead on the long run on a desinterest of JUP DAO and votes.

Is it possible to think again about how to boost the ASR ? (maybe 40% for buy-backs and 10% in USDC for the DAO)

Also regarding the jup price, DAO is playing a vital role to drive the price.

  • By reducing or increasing the sell pressure
  • By avoiding or amplifing the FUD

Market is one thing but before each controversial vote (jupuary,CAWG budget, meow alloc) We have seen huge variation (and not in the good way).

Definitly this point is to take into consideration and find way to give build again confidence in the dao AND in the jup Price

Brice

59

Sound good, amazing good job you all do🔥

1 Like
60

I never claimed everything is perfect — I said there’s more clarity. This proposal gives us all the opportunity to engage in this debate and contribute our input. That’s exactly what you’re doing, and I trust those moderating this discussion will thoughtfully consider the points raised and reflect them in the final draft. That’s my understanding. So everyone should feel free to share their views, respectfully.

1 Like
61

Let’s have it cadets… Let’s f*kin grow :high_voltage::saluting_face:

2 Likes