Hello to all,
A DAO should recognize and fairly reward long-term supporters, this is a fundamental principle for building a truly strong, resilient, and committed community. Beyond that, it should promote ongoing engagement and ensure real decentralization of infrastructure, creating broad and accessible opportunities for everyone, not just a select few.
While there are some initiatives already underway, it’s clear that there is still significant room to deepen decentralization and more fairly distribute responsibilities and benefits. Only in this way can the DAO become truly balanced and sustainable in the long run.
And here’s the most critical point: a DAO cannot operate like a closed club, relying on “hand-picked” elements by the Jupiter team or close circles. If the main opportunities continue to be reserved for a small group, we are perpetuating an unequal system where the majority of the community is sidelined, receiving only small crumbs.
Another important issue is how users present their ideas and projects to the DAO. At present, there’s no clear pre-vote or selection process to identify which projects might genuinely be of interest to the DAO. This raises key questions:
- Who decides which projects are worth developing?
- When members submit proposals, what guarantees are there that their ideas won’t simply be taken over, leaving the original proposer sidelined and just another anonymous contributor?
Without a transparent roadmap outlining what the team and the DAO plan to implement, continuing to accept proposals feels, at best, disingenuous. In fact, it might be better to stop accepting open submissions entirely, because in its current form, it does not reflect well.
Another essential aspect is the transparency of decision-making criteria and success metrics. A DAO that aspires to true decentralization must clearly communicate how decisions are made and what indicators define the feasibility and success of a project. Without this transparency, the community cannot properly track progress or fairly evaluate the real impact of initiatives, which further erodes trust and engagement.
If things continue this way, perhaps it’s time to rethink the terminology. Instead of calling it a DAO, why not rename it something like the “Jupiter Influencer & Promotion Club”, which would more accurately reflect the reality if the primary focus is on marketing and pushing the JUP token, rather than true decentralized governance.
Of course, some might say: “If you don’t like it, don’t participate.” But my response is: when you’re invested and have bought into narratives of PPP, decentralization, and community-driven development, only to see those ideals quietly reversed, it’s entirely fair to raise these concerns. 
Just to add a little context here: back at the start of April, I shared the idea of introducing validators into the DAO. Fast forward to May, and what do we see? Validators making their entrance. 
Funny thing is, at the time, I didn’t see anyone from the team stepping up to say it was a good idea or giving feedback. But now, suddenly, it’s being talked about as if it was always a great idea. 
Not pointing fingers, but it’s a good reminder that community contributions matter and that real recognition of ideas (at the time they’re shared) is key if we want a truly collaborative and decentralized environment.
From this moment on, I will no longer propose new development initiatives but will instead lend my active voice to championing what I believe is right.