Jupiter Airdrop Round 2 (2025): Analysis, Discussion & Proposal for Distribution

[JUPWhale]

@Jeanlucbb0

I think this is broadly a good proposal and I think it has been improved, the one thing I’d mention here is that maybe a minimum of 2 distinct months of utilization as an allocation requirement would be worthwhile as a sybil deterrent.

Please read this and the full reply for context.

@JUPWhale

It should be avoided to use opaque, arbitrary and random methods which would filter out many legitimate users - this would be unfair and would furthermore create a reputation and FUD issue on (social)media.

• For example when you use a minimum transaction count, you would unfairly exclude the buy and hold users who just bought $11,000 WEN or JUP or JLP and staked / HODL it, and didn’t do any further trading.
• When you use a minimum time the user should have been active on Solana, you arbitrarily and unfairly exclude hundreds of thousands of new users who were on time for the snapshot like all others.
• Instead you can include these users by not using uncertain, unfair and arbitrary methods, buy by using actual data-science based deduplication. By the way, AI can also assist a lot better in data analysis using good tools, when comparing this year to last year.

@Jeanlucbb0

My only strong disagreement is related to linearity in regards to JLP and Jup staking. If the allocation is linear, it ought to have caps. Again, linear is anti-decentralization and makes the vote largely pointless if Jupuary is going to serve to massively entrench those with top voting power.

The topic here is with allocating Jupiter to stakers, not about giving voting power to stakers.

@Jeanlucbb0

Now take that, but imagine those billionaires voted at the election for an instant 25% increase to their voting power. Come on, its silly.

That’s basically what all Billionares do by donating to election campaigns and social media marketing etc. aligned with their interest to sway voters.

As a financial protocol someone’s vote with 10M counts more than someone with 1M and someone with 1M counts more than someone with 100K and someone with 100K his vote counts more than the vote of a 10K holder etc.

@Jeanlucbb0

The strong disagreement is partially as a result of us already having the ASR. We simply don’t need a second, it adds nothing to the community which is the purpose of Jupuary to begin with.

I agree with you ethically, logically and intrinsically. But there’s a political reason:

The Jupiter community needs Jupuary for expansion.

Jupuary needs the DAO to pass the vote with a yes.

The community needs Jupuary. But IMO it’s unlikely we’ll see a Jupuary vote passed by the DAO without allocating a 25% bonus (110M JUP) to JUP stakers whom seem to be wanting and demanding even much more.

The team essentially had the power to push it, but now that there is a DAO everything needs to be alligned with both the team, the community as well as with JUP holders (stakers) by passing DAO votes. So the team and community needs to incentive the DAO to vote yes to align them with Jupuary.

As you suggest, perps should be tiered and in my opinion meaningfully capped at the top and bottom as well.

I think that’s reasonable and could be done if the team, depending on if the team agrees or not.

Again I appreciate your feedback! Let’s see which parts of the discussion they’ll mention in the call tomorrow at 3.30 UTC: https://www.youtube.com/live/HdrXWKPkUDU