Not always as most tokens adopt an 8 integer number so fractions of tokens have the same standing as a whole token unless explicitly stated like the 10 JUP stake min
2 Likes
thank you so much thats very kind.
I just didnt want a ārubber stampā vote pass without adequate discussion. Weighing up both sides is very important for such a HUGE and important vote.
4 Likes
you raise a good point here.
Underlying, the purpose is JUP is a governance token. That raises the quesitons that Supply (number of votes) shouldnt matter, rather who HAS THE MOST POWER in voting does (number of JUP in each persons wallet.) If its for governance, their is maybe no need to decrease supply?
6 Likes
Itās irrelevant.
Less JUP = more power in each JUP
More JUP = less power in each JUP
What is relevant is whether or not JUP token gets inflated or if it has static total amount. Currently there is no inflation plan. The proposed deflation plan would have impacts for the future, as release schedules would change.
Meaning the value of JUP for voting would have a higher potential for increasing, sooner.
3 Likes
Absolutely right & my hope is that we all in the DAO read these stuffs so that we can all make informed decisions when itās voting time. Not only about voting but voting right cos as @meow would say, making right decisions as a DAO contribute to PPP.
4 Likes
why then even have this discussion (or vote)?
surely you should, instead, be debating the voting mechanics and changes to them?
this token burning thingā¦ itās not what made BONK valuable you know? They were always burning tokens, and the price did what it did regardless of those.
5 Likes
100%
Iām more interested in changing JUP staking benefits and LFG process. I think this will bring more value to JUP and DAO than a burn. At least in the near-term.
Edit: To be clear, Iām not against the burn. Just do not think itās as important to focus on currently.
Hereās a post where I summarize those thoughts:
4 Likes
The discussion is purposeful and necessary to weigh up both sides. namely, the potential reactions we somewhat can predict or anticipate.
3 Likes
Proposal is Wed, Vote is Thu, there will be no discussions looks like
2 Likes
I agree with the 30% reduction. I think that is a great move for the long term success of the ecosystem.
3 Likes
We need to keep in mind where this supply reduction would come from. If the team truly will take the cut, i think it goes a long way to show how committed they are to evolving their product.
2 Likes
Iām against a Supply Reduction and will vote so. And i hope, the majority will do the same.
Because of the Promise for future airdrops I (and other peolpe surely too) already put much effort in fullfilling the conditions (for me about 3.5 Million Trading Volume so far with most of the Jupiter tools; including the needed time for trade-research and the risk of losing money while trading), what on the other side should help Jupiter well because Trading-Volume is an important factor for a financial exchange. That combined with basically more eligible Solana wallets and the need to use more functions for multiplying reasons while the Airdrop amount stays the same, will already lower the outcome significantly - compared to the one in January 24. If now the Airdrop/Supply amount would also change by -30%, the losses are even higher and therefore inacceptable, because I canāt see that much reason behind a Supply-Cut. If we take the last Rollout in January - 1 Billion Tokens were issued at arount 0,5$ starting Price. And even while most of them where sold fast, we stand today at 1,15$ (with rising tendencies because the crypto bullrun will surely continue, especially with sinking interest rates in September).
Another 1 Billion Airdrop will influence the price, yes. And maybe also with losses in short-term because people sell it off at first. But long-term not the airdrops make the price - a good product/service (and Solana & Jupiter are generally very good ones) itself will generate demand and push the price again in new athās.
And last but not least: you (the team, especially meow) talks about trust. Long-term trust is builded by keeping promises, not by promising things and changing conditions afterwards in the process while many people already put much effort in it.
2 Likes
They are planning to remove a Jupanuary in the future rather then reduce the supply of the upcoming Jupanuary by 30%.
Hence your farming will likely be rewarded.
5 Likes
Starship Jupiter is sailing well currently. Letās cut the supply to lets say 21million? 
2 Likes
I feel with the right marketting, should the reduction go ahead, jup will pump!
3 Likes
After contemplating a lot after reading your post, being caught in my own thoughts and coming back for a second review, I came to sort of my own conclusion which was my first gut-feeling anyhow.
I will vote to agree for the supply reduction, NOT even really taking into account all arguments.
The thing is, it really gets complex and convoluted, and while it was correct to represent both sides it really comes down for me to:
Pro: Long term sustainability, better āend gameā content. Better get better gear loot chances on highest tier of raid, then being stuck repeating low level dungeons for an average chance.
Con: Yadayada more JUP # get rekt
Unnecessary gamer comparison, but GG WP.
In the end what does a few more JUP in the short term mean if it has a shorter runway.
Things need time, rather give it more time to ripen and not be focussed on the first yield. Only aged wine tastes good.
4 Likes
I feel that will be a large majority of the vote, even voting no, our votes would probs be significant.
I guess the argument of $JUP as a token becomes Quality over Quantity.
Everyone would obv prefer quality.
3 Likes
Yea to a certain degree if one wants Quality over Quantity, sacrifices need to be made. Imo right now it is the easiest way to do that. 30% supply reduction will not hurt anyone now, better just get it done, move on and focus on technical utility next to solidify it.
Better doing it now than in 6 month while other things are buzzin.
4 Likes
Problem with Supply Reduction
The first issue I have with supply reduction is that it demands nothing from the team and everything from us. Contrary what Meow is claiming. Read down
Lack of a Supply Problem
The second issue is that JUP does not have a supply problem. After rewards, the price remains stable.
Demand Problem
JUPās real issue is demand. The community tends to attract passive investors who believe in zero risk investing. These investors prefer to wait for rewards rather than buy more JUP, creating a supply-demand imbalance. This is why SOL outperforms JUP.
Macromarket Conditions
Meow recently attributed SOL outperforming JUP to macromarket conditions. This is misleading. The macro market exposed JUPās demand problem. If the market were consistently rising, this issue wouldnāt have been uncovered. So, the correct statement is that macromarket conditions revealed the demand problem not caused it.
Potential Solutions
We could solve the demand problem by providing more utility for JUP on the Jup.ag platform beyond voting. For example, we could offer revenue sharing or lower fees on margin trading for stakers.
Misconceptions About Wealth and Crypto
To address the first problem, we need to correct misconceptions about wealth, crypto, the value of JUP in the treasury. The average JUP holder has a few hundred to 1,000 JUP in their wallet, which they can sell at todayās price. This means they can convert 100% of their JUP into USD. When you give up 30% you actually give up 30%.
JUP Teamās Holdings
The Jup.AG team owns 50% of JUP but can realistically sell only about 10% without driving the price down 500% down at least. (Weāve observed that jeeting of 10 million JUP like some private investors did, suppresses the price by approximately 10 cents. If the team started selling their holdings, the price would plummet after 10% of team holdings were sold. Thereās an argument that if the price drops significantly, people will buy. However, the JUP community is not inclined to buy, especially community leaders are well rewarded through working groups with free JUP, they will not support initiatives for giving JUP additional utility to create more demand.
Conclusion
The JUP team can only sell maybe 10% of what they have without making JUP almost worthless. For them, giving up 30% of rewards is insignificant because they couldnāt sell that amount anyway. The team already has many times more JUP than they can sell without significantly lowering the price. So, parting with 30% of rewards means parting with 30% of nothing they could ever sell. They donāt need these rewards and have to much of JUP to sell anyway without running price super low.
So only party that is losing is YOU.
I will vote for lowering rewards because itās a great marketing strategy and will make people who donāt understand economics buy more.
However, for the record, I am voting yes as vote will raise the price because people are dumb, not because I was successfully misled.
9 Likes
Majority of people in crypto are dumb when it comes to investing. Most are here to gamble and for most, crypto is the first āinvestmentā theyāve ever made. The best way to win in crypto is to understand the vast majority and how they behave, and act accordingly. You are in the right path.
And for the record, weāve all been dumb at some point, so nothing wrong being dumb. Minority will learn from their mistakes and the rest will keep repeating the same mistakes bringing the money for those who learnt.
7 Likes