I actually agree on that one - I thought i mentioned it in the proposal but anyway anyone with less than 10 Jup staked is most likely trying to game the system, but i think we could use a slightly different approach here. So instead of disqualifying users with 1-2-3-5-10 or whatever amount of JUP I think what we should look at is the cumulative voting power. I use as a reference the dashboard which @BTC shared in ‘‘Ranking Jup Voters’’ - JUP voting leaderboard | CyberaResearch | Flipside and there it can be seen that from 621303 wallets only 300k of them have 45.60 or more total votes which is very generous from my side and I think those wallets should be disqualified, because so far we’ve had 14 votes which is 3,25 JUP per vote (if voted on all proposals).
That is why I am suggesting tiered approach instead of the linear - in order to avoid centralization.
Great proposal, maybe with the help of Jup team it can become just as successful as first Jupuary was.
i dont feel like making it controversy, never did i mentioned it as bad actors im not against it, infact im trying to discuss it to make it more aligned towards rest of the jup products rather just simply sit and include stakers in every now and then, ASR was meant for stakers /voters and richies who are already winning in this game sitting at the top of the list and adding another layer in jupuary not the ideal choice.
Makes more sense not to rewards swap volume and rather the new features, especially perp volume as thats a new driver for fees for JUP
I will add this to my proposal
I love the Tokenomics regarding this
Let it is product based
And not just volume for all
Far different from yours , if you look at it very well
Alot of things was spelt out here
great proposal, hope the masses have the mental bandwidth to actually read it properly and vote correctly, otherwise were gonna see some gamifications on farming
I don’t think this proposal is bad, its generally workable however its fair to say that this focus on DCA and limit orders (together having the same as swaps) is creating a system that is incredibly gameable, I’m sure many have already gone ham on these features for the sake of this.
Fundamentally, limit and DCA are niche products, and from my perspective should probably be treated as much. That doesn’t mean your tiers are unworkable, but I do think that both together should be at the 5-10% mark, not equal to swaps. Swaps is the main attraction of the protocol and should probably be treated as such.
I still think there should be a tier for 1m+ volume especially as the protocol gets more use these days in volume terms, but I actually love the idea of 10k being the threshold as a sybil deterrent and to give meaningful rewards to real users.
On the other hand, like the earnestness allocation size which seems fair, so does the staking portion (although personally I’d like a little bit less that that’s just my opinion).
Perps have the potential to generate huge revenue and the incentive here makes total sense, I’d much prefer less allocation towards the niche DCA and limits and more towards perps but in general perps ought to justify meaningful rewards. Also should be said that the fees for perps are an inherent sybil deterrent making it an attractive place to allocate.
I’m actually more interested in this because of the threshold
Of course 1M+ volume will be talked about
-
It would be highly problematic to add a 3 month minimum usage requirement to any of the Jupiter features. The time between the November snapshot and the January airdrop already provides a similar time gap.
-
The main issue with this point is that it would arbitrarily and unfairly exclude users who became active on Solana and/or Jupiter only recently.
-
Furthermore there are much better ways of doing deduplication and anti-Sybil, in addition to the weeding out of 11,361,557 low volume wallets with less than < $100 trading volume.
-
yeah consistent usage would be important for sure. it would show that people actaully care and use jup products
Actually 3 months for the span of a whole year since last snapshot is nothing. This is not 2023 when solana didn’t have much attention, it’s the end of 2024 when you acknowledge that there are 15+m active wallets having interacted with Jupiter. I think it is totally fair to reward the users since we don’t want to reward neither sybils nor some wallets that have accidentally used the platform, but the core users. Those who used Jupiter for a month only or 2 imo don’t deserve to be equally rewarded as other users who have used it for many more months. Another reason for that is that maybe those who used the platform for a single month most likely will instantly sell their airdrop on day 1, while long term users and believers have higher chance to keep their airdrop, maybe stake etc.
As i said it in some earlier post - I don’t want to make everyone happy, I want to reward only those who truly and mostly deserve to be rewarded and at same time with lowest chance of them being bad actors.
These are just assumptions. Do you have any data to back up these claims? New users might just be as valuable or more valuable for Jupuary as existing users.
About your other arguments:
The point of the 2nd November 2023 - 2nd November 2024 snapshot timeframe (for example if the same as round #1 is used) is that users within that timeframe are eligible. It doesn’t make any sense then to add another time-based criterium.
The time between the November snapshot and the January airdrop already provides a similar 3-month time gap between snapshot and airdrop.
There are much better ways of doing deduplication and anti-Sybil, in addition to the weeding out of 11,361,557 low volume wallets with less than < $100 trading volume. That is using blockchain analysis. So you don’t need arbitrary and unfair methods which exclude legitimate users for no good reason.
If you include only $100.00+ volume wallets there’s just 3,885,443 out of 15,650,277 users, and if you include only $1,000.00+ users there’s just 2,302,243 out of 15,650,277 users. That already weeds out most low quality interactions. Further deduplication can be done with a blockchain data analysis tool. There is no need to use arbitrary and unreliable methods which filter out many legitimate users.
How many of those $100k+ volume wallets are yours? 
you’ve been in this forum for 7 days and i’ve never seen anyone push a narrative so hard as you…suspect
Finally someone said it haha
Fees are applied to leverage so if you use 100x you pay 100x in fees.
Rewarding fee based volume is a great way to limit Sybils imo. Also, Jupiter long term will be brighter with more fee product based volume.
I was thinking the same thing…
New users could look forward to Jupuary #3 like many of us did for Jupuary #2.