Its inarguably gameable and the cost of doing such is incredibly low.
It rewards people farming rather than using the protocol.
Most REAL users may never want to use DCA as an example, why would it therefore have half as much as the core product which is swap?
If we compared volume on both of these, my guess is DCA may even be 0.1% of the volume of swap. You mention YOURSELF that there are 285k active swappers vs 3.2k DCA users per day. Why would the DCA get half the rewards of swappers when its not even a core part of the product?
To say what JUPWhale said is “pathetic” is silly, you know full well that everywhere you look in regards to the farming community they’re talking about gaming the DCA and limit features, not to use organically but to pump volume on niche metrics hoping it hits bit with Jupuary 2.
I just don’t see how using a niche feature like this should equate to 10% of a drop. Maybe as a multiplier, or a niche allocation.
Or comparing the community allocation of forum users, Discord and Twitter, personally I think the community discussion is worth WORLDS more than DCA as an example.
Succinctly, a niche feature should be treated with a comparatively similar size of allocation.
Agreed. I have not much to add to that. The only benefit of allocating a large % to DCA and Limit is to many of the ~ 180K- 220K users who used these features in the hope of getting a better airdrop.
These features exist because it provides a more comprehensive product to a certain type of traders. We see in the data that 96% of users don’t use these features. Most users use the swap function to trade. There is no added benefit to Jupiter or to the JUP / Jupiter community for people to use DCA or Limit orders.
If the goal of the argument to focus on it is deduplication, there are much better ways to perform deduplication and anti-Sybil which are less arbitrary, more fair and more based on data including the exclusion of 11,361,557 below < $100 trading volume wallets as well as blockchain analysis.
In our proposal the trading volume of all features (eg. Swap, DCA, Limit, Perps) is included in the 340B total trading volume, as well as in a 70M JUP allocation for New Token & New Feature Users in general; including Limit and DCA, but also Ape, Perps, Vote, JUP, JLP and JupSOL.
I wasn’t aware you were using the 70X - 86X difference in trading volume as an argument to support your proposal, because the data just shows that 90 - 96% of users don’t use these features (DCA / Limit).
By the way, when you only focus on the 2,302,243 to 3,885,443 users with $1,000.00+ or $100.00+ volume of my proposal the difference is only 10.5X - 12X up to max 17.5X - 21.5X.
Traders of the perps are the ones generating the fees and the DAO holds JLP
The perp traders have generated almost 1/3 the overall volume transacted on swaps so they definitely deserve a higher allocation compared to the limit/dca features that have done close to 2% of the swap volume
Strong agree and the fees associated with perps also act as a natural sybil/farmer deterrent.
Perps comparatively aren’t a niche product and are likely to continue to grow.
DCA and limit are niche and should be treated as such. Maybe some kind of multiplier for using various niche features makes sense, but even a specific, individual allocation to DCA as an example is strange in concept.
Even JupSol or JLP holdings seems to make more sense as a minor allocation area.
I understand the desire to differentiate from the first Jupuary, but I think ultimately they should do this with higher tiers and thresholds for swaps, then add perps, stakers and community.
Remarkable man, been looking at the JUP research for almost 10 months now and decided to create an account just so I can praise the work and effort you have put up into the extensive research on the topic of Jupuary airdrop. Great job man!
DCA volume = 5.7 Billion (60X times less than swap / 1.6% of swap volume)
Limit volume = 1.7 Billion (191X times less than swap / 0.5% of swap volume)
DCA & Limit combined = 7.4 Billion (47X less than swap / 2.1% of swap volume)
Nobody who honestly looks at above data would conclude that Limit Order & DCA (7.4 Billion / 2.1% of swap / 47X less) should get anything near the allocation of Swap volume (344B volume).
If the team would do it according to your proposal, swap & limit order users would unfairly get 47 times more allocation as regular traders / swap users!
The only fair approach here is to treat all volume (swap / DCA / limit) equal, and give a volume multiplier for special / new features (for example 1.5X or 2X multiplier.
In summary: Limit & DCA which have 47X less volume / only 2.1% compared to swap volume (7.4B volume compared to 344B).
These features clearly don’t deserve a 47X bigger allocation than swap volume. 96% of Jupiter users does not use the swap or DCA, and there is no clear additional benefit for Jupiter for them to do so.
The only fair approach here is to treat all volume (swap / DCA / limit) equal, and give a volume multiplier for special / new features (for example 1.5X or 2X multiplier.
This is all true, and because of that I am saying that there is high chance swappers are not all real users. It costs 7$ to make 10k$ vol on a wallet from swaps and by your rewarding mechanism 1 wallet will receive 150 JUP tokens which presumably are 1$=1 JUP that’s 143$ per wallet profit which is incentive for bad actors. I can bet you there are millions of wallets who tried to game the system and with that calculations your criteria is easily gameable. So as an easier alternative i offered to simply reward niche users who are 100x less as a numbers and with much higher % chance of them being real
Thank you for the suggestion, as an alternative to my proposal.
1. As a community we can’t just allocate 47X more to a certain feature (like Swap or Limit) in the hope that it has been abused less. We have to use data and use effective deduplication and anti-Sybil, using a blockchain analysis tool.
2. There’s no knowing if the percentage of farmers is lower among DCA & Limit compared to swap. Likely not as we’ve seen from the YouTube video’s people have also been farming those.
3. Most of the gaming with swap volume is already being filtered out with the $100 minimum volume which filters out 73% of wallets (11,361,557).
4. Further gaming will be filtered out with blockchain analysis performing deduplication and anti-Sybil. There is therefore no need for arbitrary filtering.
5.The tiers in my proposal indicate 2.3 Million users (2,302,243) of Jupiter with $1,000+ volume. This is very realistic considering that JUP alone already has 800,000 holders already, and not yet everyone using Jupiter holds JUP. Nearly everyone on Solana uses Jupiter and the Solana user base has grown like crazy into the many millions since 1 year ago, especially during the memecoin bullruns of late 2023 and around April 2024 with more memecoins exploding every month.
As per the YouTube influencers teaching people to use DCA and Limit orders we can’t trust that these features have been less gamed as DCA, and we can’t give them a disproportionate airdrop allocation.
What would be reasonable is to include the DCA volume ($5.7B) and Limit order volume ($1.7B) on top of the swap volume ($340M) and count it all equal and use the volume tiers, or at the add a multiplier for the volume of for example 1.5X or 2X.
Perpetual volume
Perpetual volume probably deserves more attention in my current proposal, but your proposal has perps equal to swaps which is also out of balance (although much less out of balance than the DCA / Limit story). Perps is around 4X out of balance vs DCA and limit which are 47X out of balance, considering the volume.
Perpetual volume is $129.7B which includes a lot of leverage (up to 100X). Swap volume on the other hand is around 3X more at $340B - but without the leverage. So I will actually increase the allocation for perps volume in my proposal up to max 1/3rd of swap volume, because that’s what it deserves according to the data.
For example when the swap allocation = 450M then perps = 150M max.
FYI You can make $10,000 in volume with $50 collateral on Jupiter perps ($50 buy/open + $50 sell/close x 100X leverage = $10,000. The fee would be around $10 for doing that, so the cost of doing the volume is quite similar to the cost of swaps.
Strongly agree with you here. Will also adjust this balance in my own proposal. For more info on my thoughts on perps, you can scroll to the end of my latest comment:
Hi Mr whales.you always say that swapping is trading.swapping is just a swap.Traders do long or shorts by analysis of graphics,where the price will go up or down…take a risk so and profit…That is trading.Use Fibonacci retracments.This is real trading.Here on Jupiter guy you are confusing trading with one click swapping ,pretending to be traders.thanks
Mr Whale it’s so sad that Jupiter become a DEX like Zeta Markets ,Drift Protocol Kiloex,and the users because of the airdrop round 2 just swapping…new features like perpetual doesn’t have any affect I see…volume is so low Jupiter platform…I think degradate ,where swappers rose from 995000 to 15 millions .They don’t generate any income to Jupiter which is very bad for the Jupiters future
mr Whales but how comes that your proposal for for perpetual volume trading which generates income to the Jupiter Dex to be 70 millions token allocation…?and it is 1/3 of all the trading volume…?But for swaps which brings to jupiter no revenue nearly 400 million tokens allocations?
You are spamming
Repeating same message thousand of time with some sort of data
Pls stop
They have seen what you wrote
You don’t need to quote it again thousand time
