@muiq is making the updates around Jupuary look simple and easy to follow up in here by just updating this debate topic. Brilliant idea👏🏿
4 Likes
It’s going to be impossible to make everyone happy. I think it’s time to get behind the team, align with their vision and trust them.
It’s time to get over it and move on.
3 Likes
This vote needed to happen yesterday. The longer this is dragged out the more the vibes become negative and ultimately that kills everything. Just drop the vote and let’s get back to bull posting. Jupuary yes or no is not worth missing out on a raging bull market.
1 Like
Get the feeling but things need to be done right considering how consequential this vote can be for Jup’s future! We are almost there💪🏿
2 Likes
Yeah for sure, not everyone will be happy. Heres the possible situations that will occurs:
- people who wash traded on jup all year thinking they would get a GARUANTEED Airdrop. = mad
- Sybil bots thinking they could beat the system realising the jup team are smart af = disappointed.
- Those who staked thinking theyd get drop = mad
there are many more situations but these are the main
5 Likes
They likely want to avoid two votes in such a short period of time, as it would reduce the ASR rewards for those who unstaked last week due to the news about the “no stakers” criteria.
3 Likes
I understand your point, but it’s important to acknowledge that we can’t have it both ways. This is precisely why some individuals needed to wait—the team clearly communicated that the initial comments provided were not definitive. They emphasised that they were carefully considering the points raised in the debates and would incorporate those insights into the final draft.
Another key factor to consider is that those who chose to unstake their tokens did so with the goal to benefit by either selling them or gaining the freedom to leverage those tokens as they saw fit which within their rights. Meanwhile, those who remained committed had to endure the potential downsides that others avoided. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but fairness requires consistency, and we must accept that both choices come with their own consequences.
2 Likes
The only thing this proofs is a huge lack of planification from the Jupiter team.
They had the whole year to ask for your feedback before throwing such an incoherent statements.
Switch things like the " unlock period " it’s not a minor change
1 Like
Mad, disappointed or unhappy… time to move on. It’s not a prison. Who’s not happy can leave at any time.
We can’t debate the same thing forever. The best option right now, imo, it’s to pass the proposal, trust team’s judgement regarding the criteria and look forward.
Cancelling Jupuary will look very bad for the entire community, specially for the team.
Tbh, I wasn’t happy with this debate from the beginning, but that doesn’t mean I’m right about it.
6 Likes
thanks man for the summary. enjoyed it, and pretty useful for me, kinda missed the rally, cause needed to be somewhere else :))
3 Likes
I highly doubt they’re thinking about that at all. Besides, anyone that unstaked last week can either vote with partial voting power or cancel their unstake and vote with full power.
2 Likes
I read the essay and watched the Jup rally. First of all I’d like to say that i am staker, active participant and want all the best to the community and Jupiter.
I think that the team shows us that they don’t have an idea what are they doing/want to do. First we have a roadmap with 4 Jupuaries with 1b each, then we vote for supply burn - So far that’s alright. Then we have to vote whether or not we have another 1-2 Jupuaries, like why, wasn’t that the initial idea on first place? Right after that the team suggests that stakers will not be rewarded for the airdrop but at the same time exactly those same stakers will decide the fate of the other users and that in my opinion simply means that team doesn’t want any more Jupuaries (because with such incentives that would be the outcome 99 out of 100 times). On top of that we have a minimum threshold of 70% to vote for yes in order to have a Jupuary but without any clear criteria - absolutely no whale ( or even smaller staker) will want to risk his bag getting diluted for the potential of getting “some airdrop” (or even nothing at all). This is absolutely contradictory to Meow’s vision of PPP because it simply cannot be implemented without any incentives for the people to do it. It is a sad truth, but still a truth. Also after yesterday’s rally when they said that there will be no vesting which is quite the opposite of what was said 1 week ago means that they are not prepared for anything if the vote passes.
I will repeat - i have no bad feelings towards Jup and the team nor community. This is simply the way i see what’s happening the last couple of weeks which i personally think it will rather tear up the community than do any good for it. I hope we all come up with some better ideas and do it the best way possible while leaving as little number of people as possible unsatisfied.
6 Likes
Really think Meow and the team are setting up JUP for the long term. Kinda bummed that there isn’t the one year lock as mentioned before, but real Space Cats will conduct themselves wisely I know 
70% special majority is a steep goal, but if it passes then there is know doubt about the DAO’s overall stance. JUP is home, and we all have a future here in the Jupiverse.
Thank you Meow for your hard work in preparing the essay!
3 Likes
I agree with some things you said but, to say that the team is clueless, it’s a bit too much.
They’ve learn a lot after the first Jupuary and I’m pretty sure they know what are they doing.
They have an incredibly difficult job regarding Jupuary.
I didn’t agree with the debate regarding Jupuary2. I think the time was absolutely awful to have this debate. We should’ve had this debate after Jupuary 2, in my opinion, regarding Jupuary3(4).
Do I think the DAO should decide anything about Jupuary2? Absolutely not.
However, these are just some personal opinions and, I might be wrong.
I understand that the team has much, much more info than anyone else, they have a better vision about the future of Jupiter and, I’m absolutely convinced that they want to get this right.
For these reasons, regardless some disagreements I have, I choose to give them credit and trust their vision.
3 Likes
Why 3, though? We don’t know the criteria yet and it will only be decided on after the vote. Maybe they will end up get something? There’s no sense in being mad yet and I’d hope that, with the essay, folks would not be mad or not be too mad either way, knowing that the goal is that there will be more stakers and more DAO members as a result of Jupuary. We’re lucky to be here already, and now hopefully others will feel the same luck after this airdrop if it happens.
Feels like one of those situations Mark Twain famously quipped about -
“I’ve had a lot of worries in my life, most of which never happened.”
3 Likes
Because the initial Jupuary preceded the DAO. Also, things change. Once it became so active, it only made sense that the DAO should decide what to do with tokens from the Community pool.
I agree with you here on that we should know the full scope of the criteria prior to the vote. I put this under “Transparency”. Also, the outcome would be more pure.
I think you’ve got this backwards. My understanding of what they’re trying to convey with PPP is for individuals to act in a way that is most beneficial for all vs. what is most beneficial for themselves - i.e., incentives shouldn’t matter.
I disagree. To me, it means they’ve reconsidered their initial position based on new information and further reflection. It demonstrates a willingness to change.
If you want to make an omelette, you’ve got to break a few eggs.
4 Likes
Surprised that no one has discussed the following:
Personally not a fan of the proof of humanness concept, albeit will see how it goes. Interesting to see a vesting approach has been rejected.
3 Likes
Well, I disagree with that because if it was mentioned in the roadmap that there will be 4 Jupuaries, so be it.
I understand that PPP is their wording for Nash Equilibrium, but markets have been and always will be PvP and because of that NE cannot be implemented without any incentives for each individual, because otherwise we would rely only on blind trust. However, there are ways that could simply reward existing/new users without tieing them to the rewards they get. We can’t make everyone happy with the way the DAO is constructed (it’s a whole different topic that 100% pure democracy is not the best for community but I will leave that topic for a different time).
As for your last point - could be true, could not. I know for sure that initially meow said that he doesn’t want vesting, because JUP is a gift etc. etc. ; then we go back 1 week from now when he said that it will be vested and again 2 days ago when said that it won’t. Another example is the staking - Meow initially said that dao governance should be rewarded and they are the core of JUP (which is true tbh) and the airdrop + ASR are different things; then we have it again 1 week ago when we heard that voters will not be rewarded but they will have to vote if they want their stake dilluted. All those controversities led me to believe that the team isn’t quite sure what are they doing. I hope I am wrong and they do what’s the best for the community and project itself.
2 Likes
No vesting makes me quite anxious… supply shock is gonna be quite shocking!
2 Likes