I don’t understand who liked you but I think it’s not their fault, they are used to not reading and liking with their eyes closed. Ah, so the idea is to enrich Jupiter and leave the glory of the users to give likes and politely thank for being in the group, congratulations, you remind me of the evil genius Dr. Evil? It seems like a brilliant plan to me: let’s leave it to the whales and the great experts to have fun with sophisticated strategies, let’s leave the little ones in their dreams.
1 Like
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
2 Likes
Hey Kash. I have a number of questions relating directly and indirectly to your essay. I have gathered them all here, thanks :
All questions are ment to drop here so everyone can view, contribute and give a feedback.
Don’t know why it didn’t pull through. I’ve given the url again now
JM aerogr! Could you please specify what CWG stands for? I’m a bit confused.
Thanks Kash for writing & sharing this. I really loved the section Learnings from Year 1.
It kinda sounds like the Jupiter DAO is in need of a Compendium – a document outlining what the DAO is, what it does and how, who has what mandates, plus it outline the process of how it can get updated. At any one point anyone can read this document and get a clear picture of what Jupiter DAO is.
2 Likes
CWG = Core Working Group
CAWG = Catdet Working Group
1 Like
took your feedback along with a few other’s and delayed the vote until Wednesday!
we’ll have a twitter space tomorrow, along with normal meetings with CoCs and the WG members on monday and tuesday
3 Likes
dropped comments on your doc! thanks for putting that together
yes indeed! that’s the end goal for sure, will likely take a few different votes though
(e.g. creating a delegate system for voting would be a separate vote since it’s big enough of a change to merit its own conversation)
2 Likes
i don’t really understand the first sentence here tbh
the idea is obviously not to enrich Jupiter, if it was why would we be sending 50% of onchain revenues to the Litterbox Trust? How bad would we have to be at enriching ourselves to think that was a good idea lol
Also comparing me to Dr. Evil is pretty funny, objectively, just given how hairy I am and how hairless he is.
1 Like
indeed, we’ll need to figure out ASR together! that will be a future vote, rather than something we figure out right now, since it’s own large conversation.
agree to disagree here - even if the team is taking a leading role in the DAO, that doesn’t mean there isn’t still community decision-making, power over the use of community resources, and governance.
yes, I am explicitly saying the DAO will not be fully autonomous in the short term. on that point, there is no debate.
but I am saying is that we should focus on making the DAO as effective as possible - for token holders, for community members, and for Jupiter - and that will require more time and a steady leadership hand.
there’s a reason there are very few functional DAOs in crypto - it’s really really hard to structure it right! particularly at Jupiter scale.
so if the options are (a) make the DAO fully autonomous, at the risk that it becomes less effective or (b) guide the DAO on a path towards progressive independence, at the risk it doesn’t “feel” like a DAO as much, I’ll take option (b) every time.
outcomes matter more than anything else - that is the clearest takeaway i have from hundreds of discussions with token holders, community members, and partners.
that said - i think there’s been some great feedback to include more concrete milestones for what that independence looks like, which I’ll be adding to the final proposal!
Thanks for the reply, Kash. I appreciate the clarity, and I understand the intention behind opting for a “steady leadership hand.” But this is exactly why language matters so much.
You say “outcomes matter more than anything else.” I agree — but outcomes are shaped by expectations, and expectations are set by definitions.
Calling this structure a DAO while explicitly stating that it won’t be autonomous, doesn’t govern tokenomics, doesn’t control protocol-level decisions, and will be managed top-down for at least two more years — that’s where the tension lies. It’s not about wanting a free-for-all; it’s about aligning messaging with reality.
Right now, we’re selling the dream of decentralization while maintaining centralized command. That’s fine — but don’t call it a DAO yet. Call it a Collective, or a Growth Council, or whatever else fits. That would remove so much confusion, reduce the friction between team-led structure and community hopes, and reset expectations honestly.
And when we do hit the milestones that signal real autonomy, let’s earn the DAO name back.
Until then, it’s not about semantics. It’s about clarity, trust, and building something with the right foundations.
Let’s set the tone now for the ecosystem we actually want to grow into — not just the one we talk about.
3 Likes
For the first and only way to get your attention, for the second I’m happy that you understood who I’m talking about so I don’t have to apologize for a joke. (wrong but you would never have answered me) Coming back to us, I’ve been trying for years to create a game that would bring income to all participants inside and outside. An initiative that combines transparency, community and competitive innovation. With the right support, it can generate lasting value for everyone and amplify Jupiter’s visibility. A mix of strategy, participation and growth. The only thing I’m asking you to consider reading in private some drafts that I created, just think that the project, if it goes through, would bring enthusiasm and earnings to everyone with a few investment credits. Since Easter is making us worry, (Dr. EVIL is my favorite villain. I don’t feel like apologizing for so little)
1 Like
I like this approach, sure it would require massive rebranding…but that’s ok imo. It also gives us time to figure out what exactly a DAO should look like, set specific targets and milestones, and a way to truly KNOW when we’ve arrived, and EARNED the DAO Badge.
I also hope that the next version of the proposal includes some mention of increased $JUP platform/ecosystem utility. Or, at minimum, a formal acknowledgement of who is to drive the economic value of $JUP (Team? Collective/DAO?).
1 Like
This proposal is phenomenal. 
The clarity, structure, and forward-thinking approach laid out here sets a new benchmark for what a DAO can aspire to be. The balance between progressive decentralization and DAO maturity is incredibly well-thought-out. You’re not just building a treasury, you’re cultivating a living, evolving organism of innovation.
One idea I’d love to contribute to the roadmap:
Implement a system of “Proof-of-Impact” quests for builders and contributors. These would be publicly visible, onchain-tracked missions (not just bounties), tied to measurable growth or ecosystem value. Let DAO contributors earn reputation + $JUP grants based on real impact, not just participation. This could boost long-term alignment and surface hidden talent within the community.
Jup Team you are amazing, love you guys 
2 Likes
Thanks for sharing
2 Likes