Thanks for your comment and taking the time to write this
Yes in my proposal I raised the limit from $0,01 (previous round) to $100+ to be eligable for the airdrop, thereby excluding 11,361,557 users.
This lower limit requirement can be extended even more by excluding every wallet with less than $1,000.00 in volume, which would only include the 2,302,243 Jupiter users out of 15,650,277 with $1,000.00+ in trading volume or 14.7% of total users.
Still the $1K - $10K tier only gets 70 JUP and youâd need more significant volume to reach a more significant airdrop, for example $100K+ for a 548 JUP airdrop.
Raising the lower limit from $100 to $1000 would filter out 1,583,200 additional users with $100 - $1000 in volume. The main reason I still included this tier is that Meow said he wants Jupuary to be growth oriented and broadly distributed, and because it would be arbitrary and unfair to exclude users without a reason grounded in the data and analytics to back it up.
Yes fair point and I also agree we could give a higher allocation to Jupiter perps which is the biggest revenue generator out of all the Jupiter products.
Social media and online community is also very important in crypto but I think 70M out of 700M (10% of the total) is more than enough to generously reward all active online community members.
And that is, very generously. I propose that you and I also get a share of it. Iâd say you deserve 2M JUP and I only 1M. Maybe even increase the size from 10% to 20% or 30%? What do you think?
Burn it all so everyone benefits equally. If people arenât staking JUP already then thereâs no reason to believe theyâll stake their airdrop. Why is anyone even considering diluting their own bag, it makes no sense. Personally Iâll be dumping before the airdrop if itâs passed and then buy back after the price is murdered.
Millions of Jupiter users donât yet HOLD JUP. Jupuary is meant to distribute JUP to the community of Jupiter users. Itâs part of the JUP tokenomics, 40% part of it actually.
If you donât agree with the Jupiter or JUP vision and ethos, thatâs youâre own business. But itâs not like the community is suddenly going to change course because of your negative comment.
Furthermore Jupuary has already been established in the tokenomics and promised:
everyone buying jup should knew the whole tokenomics the way it was designed proportionally, btw welcome to the party of debate, wont drag you regardless of you joining 3hrs ago like few people did i doubt that person could be you anyway and you understood the entire topic, Chad.
just to let you know everyone is somehow jup holder either big or small part of it.
i dont think is fair to allocate 70M jups between DAO/ Stakers : 622,716 different accounts, and to allocate another 70M between catdets, WG, Communtiy contributors (what is the total number of contributors?) i believe it is good to benefit those who are contributing to JUP in someway but maybe lets make it a better proportion, to make it fair.
honestly imo from the start we should only reward stakers, community contributors, wg etc, are already being paid for their work if approved.
all other successful projects like OP only rewards stakers, or else a whale could just come and do some trades and get bigger reward than a true Jupiter supporter?
Look at what happened to SCROLL they only cared about TVL and Volume and now everybody is leaving the chain.
Of course Jupiter is not a chain, but users feel abandoned when the project focus more on rewarding those whales other than true supporters.
Many users staked their JUP since day 1 for believing they are important and recognized! Many of those with only 100-1000 JUP, it´s not much money, but hey, for many this is a lot!
im finding difficult to understand what you said,
first you said âimo from the start we should only reward stakersâ okay noted, then you stated âloook what happened to scroll they only cared about TVL and volumeâ anyway this claim is false they considered whales among users maybe you need more information to understand this.
and now âOfcourse jup is not a chain, but users feel abandoned when the project focus more on rewarding those whalesâ
surprisingly every votes matches their pure intention, bag it.
but hey waiting for your reply.
i just dont want to be a villain here what im pointing is to furthermore not manipulate the governance by bias pov, this gets one sided while tops stays at the top by attaining more voting right for his one own benefit or one biased view.
i can hardly believe anyone here arguing towards them can make up the list, if they really had that amount of staked person would have flaunted for sure or wouldnât ever cared to join a conversation like this.
My main point is, the best way to create value for Jupiter´s ecosystem and its token is to incentivize users to buy and stake JUP.
this will create a strong price action leading because everyone understands JUP is not only about pump and dump, farm airdrops and leave, but it´s about those that support the project, believe that what´s being built will change the future of crypto as a whole.
when you incentivize staking JUP by rewarding stakers you make those that are not staking to join too.
traders with huge volume or LP with high TVL will already be rewarded from their trades (or not if they are bad at it, but thats not the point) and they can do that else where, that doesnt make them loyal to Jupiter.
I totally agree that there must be bonuses for those stakers with more volume, used all tools avaliable, etc, but the main criteria is that they are part of the community and DAO, that they voted because they care about the project and not only about the potential profit
ADDING: btw, im not a whale if thats your concern, i only have 2k JUP staked and no matter what will be approved it´ll probably change very little to me, but thats what i think it´s fair
long story short ASR is already being bagged by richies in this game they are winning, weird part is ive got staked double then your numbers it bothers me more than you. i think a casual 100% APY can fix this 1m makes 1m, sorry to mention but there are 10m and 5m respectively apart from just 1m, what are the odds that these stakers wont book profit after getting that high yield. they single handedly control the narration.
the same what you told âloook at scrollâ thats what your now recommending. your inviting farmers that your doing it wrong here governance is the right place, tbh staking is easy gameable with minimal efforts. forgive me but as long theres a projects farmers among users are essential you cant stop them, but proper step and anti methods can exclude them from revolving inside.
by this your leaving a strong message to new emerging users, Money makes Money Beaches
so what you mean products jup provides and from which protocol marks revenue is not worthy to be considered.
how come a 45% APY is not profitable,
100k â 45k
1,000,000 â 450,000
10,000,000 â 4,500,000
Thats passive income, its minimal interaction, cost less than a minute.
its great to onboard new user but through natural means, thats what jup is capable rather just being a place for voting catdet.
the day those numbers dumped on your head you will realize it was too late to think.
I would like to give credit where credit is due! One of the most detailed thread about the Jupuary 2, would think that it took some effort to put up, great job on that!
Although I would like to see a little twist in the DAO/Stakers dep. where number of votes participated in is also something that gets into valuation of the airdropped amount.
Iâm like really thrilled to see what the team will come up with, exciting times are ahead!
I donât like the volume aggregator. One whale can make one or two considerable transactions and call it a day. It should also be based on the number of transactionsâsomeone who comes on daily and interacts. Two or three huge transactions should countâyes, but not as much as someone who has 500 transactions over the course of the year.
There are two suggestions about DAO and SWAP. In order to prevent the whales from getting more JUPs, DAO can set a bottom line. For example, a minimum of 10 JUPs are required to be pledged. Each vote is divided into points. The more votes, the more points you get. No matter Whether you have 1M or 100 JUPs, it will be allocated the same. Regarding SWAP, in order to prevent multiple accounts, you can add conditions for monthly activity or multiple separate trading days based on the minimum transaction volume.
Thank you. Itâs clear you believe you have the best solution and expect complete agreement from everyone. That said, I enjoyed reading your work, and my concerns are only with the allocations. I suggest focusing on the 2.3 million JUP users with balances over $1,000, considering them serious users. Others would have a year to engage with JUP to qualify for the next airdrop. Additionally, tracking both consistency and frequency of interactions would allow people with volumes around $1000 (e.g., from developing countries) to be rewarded as long as they actively engage with Jupiter.
I fully agree with that. Just like he used deduplication and eliminated people with under 100$ volume, I think we should eliminate people that might have 15k$ volume but less than X txs done on JUP (not sure how many). Otherwise nothing would stop a whale from farming hundreds of wallets by using the same 15k$ and rotating them from wallet to wallet.
Iâd like to see the proposal done by @JUPWhale but with only wallets that made lets say at least 5 or 10 txs using JUP (just to avoid those one time tx wallets with big volume)
