What i mean is the distribution obviously has to be linear like the ASR distributions so far.
Maybe with a lil sophistication like based on votes or such like
1 Like
Decide that accounts with <10 JUP(this is for the vote) will be excluded first. Then, stakers and Jupuary will have no business with sybil context. Jupuary may be distributed more in the context of lower share that goes to stakers, as they already have some ASR. But I see no problem with sybil attack. It should be solvable very easily.
2 Likes
I agree it’s a terrible choice by the team.
Would suggesting talking to Meow at the JUP rally if you are unhappy.
1 Like
Thanks for the reply but…Wait as second, I feel like the goal post as been moved without us knowing.
When did this become about sybils moreover @tkdrps brings up a good point.
I have not heard people complaining about sybils for staking, maybe i have been out of touch. In fact, the number of unique stakers has been highlighted a number of times.
1 Like
True, sybil has never been a problem for the 50mil JUP emissions. There are problems with tiered approach though as there are many sybil clusters with 0.00001 to 1 JUP staked. These clusters took huge amounts of $Zeus and other tokens that did tiered. Not a problem if airdrop to stakers was linear!
2 Likes
There are 15-ish million wallets which have used the platform compared to 600k stakers. For a start that’s a huge difference. I am aware that there are Sybil stakers as well since I have looked at those graphs you mentioned - and I think that it can be relatively easy solved by making a minimum of staked amount and/or minimum number of votes or voting power to weed out most of the sybils.
1 Like
I agree with your concerns, but if we reward stakers from ASR and the airdrop both linearly that will reduce the already problematic decentralization of the voting power since recently we had a problem that basically the top 10 stakers can decide the fate of a vote and after linear airdrop that problem will only get worse. Imo we simply need minimum votes/minimum staked amount/minimum total voting power. I agree that it is possible that some sybils may remain but it will remove most of them and honestly it all comes down to make a choice if we want the top 10 stakers to have even bigger voting power and further reduce the decentralization or simply to accept the fact that we may accidentally reward some sybils along the process. For my last point i think that it will happen whatever the criteria is, because even meow said it - there are no 100% Sybil proof methods, and I tend to agree with it - I just want them to be as little number as possible while that not being at the expense of real users.
1 Like
I see, i just saw post of how many wallets are between 0.1 and 1 JUP staked, i found that to be insane. I now understand why how a tiered airdrop might be an issue. I think a minimum voting volume could easily clean up the most of the sybils. As highlighted by @Delqnski
Unfortunately I am going to have to disagree solely on the basis that ASR is already supporting stakers.
4 Likes
the fact no matter what happens teams could never satisfy in any aspects, everyone has bias choices, stakers not happy with ASR finding for additional benefits to keep aligned in more favorable opinion. every token has cliff and vesting which unlocks over period of time, this doesnt means who bought has percent on every unlock lol.
Funny that you don’t hear us stakers complaining about swaps/DCA/LO/perps getting allocations, but you guys are ALWAYS complaining about how much we get or whales getting too much JUP.
Solution is simple, go buy JUP and stake it like us, you can buy however much you want as long as you have money. Life isn’t fair
5 Likes
u cant dare to complain is part of jup product which it offers to be utilized and incentive is what attract more users, ASR finds way to stakers thats cool it is what it was meant to incentive stakers. atleast find it as a privilege that voters opinion does matters regardless of how vote turns out to be, problematic is that team shouldnt have come up with vote if it was meant to happen.
im staker as well, talking of money its god grace it blessed you in a particular way to be boastful no matter what it could flip in seconds.
Team is deemed for long term creativity and wants sustainability of platform not votes, they are glass chewing lads.
Team can do both.
Not annoy 600k stakers and reward platform users. Doesn’t have to be 700mil entirely to one side, which is what Meow is suggesting in chat over and over: “staking is different”, “staking won’t be included” etc. So we stake JUP, we’re going to be diluted over and over yearly and ASR ROI decreases next year with 700mil added to the pool. Makes no sense to ignore stakers, evidenced by all the distate in discords general chat, JUP research and twitter.
3 Likes
Rewarding your numbers 600k makes no productivity majority are less than 1 jup with 350k wallets and rest above are already well funded with ASR with linear approach which clearly made on conflict of interest topic, ik bribe fix every patches which further possibly be addressed in jup rally.
meow did said vote needs to be purely in terms of W/O self interest, greediness is not godliness idk who said this but sure a wise man, yes not me.
There is a difference between un staking but holding onto your Jup
Here you are right.
Although we can say that everything we receive depending on whether it is good or bad is a gift, we can also say that JUP is in a situation of uncertainty. Let me explain…the first quarter JUP launched to around $2 when staking and ASR rewards were announced.
Lately we have seen how BTC, SOL and others have continued to break ath but not JUP. That means that we are in a situation of uncertainty where the largest investors do not know what to do. If they buy now they are afraid of being diluted with the sales pressure of jupuary… but it also doesn’t make sense because if 100% of all those who receive jupuary sold (which is impossible) with the 75% penalty there would only be around of 125M of jup for sale which is a lot…but not enough to have this uncertainty.
I think that after Monday…the vote and followed by the 30% burning in Catstambul we can have a good exponential rise. I’m not talking about me, I’m talking in sentimental terms that I can see from X, discord.
There are many people who are not happy with this, which means that we have to change something. 
2 Likes
Having read through the comments I can see that there are some very unsatisfied people. What you don’t realise is the large amount of tokens that will get unstaked over time. This i assume Will be passed along to stakers. The price appreciation of the asset and having the reputation of a real decentralised dex. The last one is the most important. If I get an airdrop then I will just keep it staked till 2029 as it was free and I can see that during the next bear market I probably would gain a lot of extra tokens by just doing so. If we go to 10$ by the end of this bull even if price dropped 70% we would still be at 3$. With the way the tokenomics are developing it could mean there be less people staking after the bull so more unclaimed and early unstake penalties, meaning a lot more heading over to those who remain.
1 Like
I mean, it’s pretty obvious at this point that the team (meow) made a mistake publicly talking about stakers the way he did. I understand his point, they want the vote to be pure. But if they take this approach, they will lose many from the current staking/voting community and just replace them (us) with new stakers/voters.
Waiting for the Monday essay, that pretty much determines if the community gets even more divided or becomes more united.
3 Likes
The question is will stakers be able to show they believe in the long term goals of the project. As ultimately onboarding new users and growth is the aim of Jupuary and in the best interest of the dex. Will they be able to say yes we are getting a lot already let’s invite new / tested user’s into the dao. Don’t forget that a lot of people from the first airdrop became the dao.
Sometimes thought I think some things should not be put to a vote. But here we are. Voting power is not a bad idea as a system but in this case it might actually hurt the overall project. Best in those cases to ask 1000 people who don’t have any vested interest and their vote is equal to decide on what makes actual sense. Long term. The reason why I say this is because it was my understanding that there would be further tokens minted as part of future airdrops. It was a promise to users. In a way saying stakers voted against this would not be a good enough reason to not have this as it was part of the initial launch. I think this would create a reputation that would not help Jupiter or price. Will Jupiter still be used sure but just not as much.
1 Like
Sorry my reply wasn’t ment to be reply to your message but just generally for this thread.
In my opinion stakers are showing that they are willing to commit to hold JUP long(er) term. They can’t sell the pumps due to 30 day lock. I’m not personally gonna hold JUP or any other token long term as I’m a person who tries to get in to the market at the bottom of bear and exit at the top of bull and then enter again at the bottom of next bear. Can’t time it perfectly but even if you manage to do it half decently, it has better expected value compared to holding long term (5-10 years).
Holding an altcoin through the market cycle(s) is not optimal for a person like me who have ability and will to follow the market daily.
But even so, I chose JUP and Jupiter as one of the projects I want to get into because I see the potential and believe it can deliver.
3 Likes