I wrote larger update in a new topic ~ 7 hours ago, took me also ~ 7 hours to write. The perps update is included in there, but the post is still pending approval. The perps allocation is the most significant change of the new update.
1 Like
Those 11 million wallet could just be low tier farmers. I am not in agreement with this approach. I do not see any improvements from last JUPuary that had several problems. Peope who did one or two high value swaps got more tokens than those who were on Solana for 2 years. Of course, we know who dumped.
I donāt think you understand market dynamics and Iām not convinced by your sampling size, but if 700 million tokens are expected to enter the market and the liquidity isnāt there to absorb it, the price will dump. Due to this risk, the tokens should be staked and vested. Itās free anyways, so there should be no expectation to get it immediately and if they are aligned with JUP this shouldnāt bother them.
3 Likes
I am onboard with this proposal.
This has been a very exciting year for Solana. Many of you forget that the network was strained before major upgrades throughout the year.
One manās āfarmerā is another personās beta tester. Individuals who used DCA, LOs, Perps should be rewarded for using these products in their infancy. These products were at the mercy of the network and oracle issues (especially first half of the year) and were a little painful at times to use. I personally did not use Limit Orders much, but the individuals that continued to stick with this feature are pushing the team for better fill times and experience, these Cats should be rewarded (hopefully LOs are mastered and implemented in Perps to further boost the Jupiverse).
This proposal creates alignment with Jupiter platform users, those who provided the LP capital for the Perps exchange and faithful stakerās that have locked up 33% of the circulating supply to the DAO, with a track-record of of HODLing. Many people miss votes because of the 4 day voting window (roughly 20% of the voting tokens last vote) but stick with it. Active Staking Rewards are not guaranteed returns but provide great support for project.
This plan leaves no Cat left behind and also doesnāt provide too many rewards for people that might be trading between stable coins or obvious bot wash-trading that the team can surely catch, as they have before.
At the last check of the Dashboard, Jupiter makes something like ~$5M per week in income, those who wish to paper hand their tokens will do so at their own peril, just as before.
3 Likes
Hi everybody, Iāve made significant updates to the proposal in the following topic:
-
Since the last edit we made the following drastic changes:
- We decreased regular volume allocation by 100M JUP
- We removed the $100.00 - $1,000.00 regular volume tier (40M)
- We included DCA and Limit orders in the volume allocation
- We we decreased the contributors allocation from 70M to 50M
- We we decreased the new token and features from 70M to 50M
- We increased the Jupiter Perps allocation by 6X with 100M
- We grew the JUP Staker amount by 57% from 70M to 110M
Those interested can view the full proposal through the link below:
3 Likes
Nice work. But I also think giving the biggest amounts of airdrop should be to those using the products in 2024 who have not received any airdrop. The first round was very big.
3 Likes
The argument which you are using could be still used for niche criterias. Here is the problem:
I am not talking about inexperienced farmers which connect their wallets with one another.
Nobody has ever before tracked users IP addresses and even if they do, i doubt you are not familiar with the existence of VPNs and proxies. Also i think both you and me know that these people from poor countries are being most of the times funded from richer people so therefore itās not only the principle āquantity over qualityā. I simply wanted to give large proportion to niche criterias since lesser people are using them with higher % of chance for them being real. Anyway i agree that some changes could be made with my proposal regarding dca and limit order allocations but it will be to bump up the perpetual users allo, i will not add anything more to swappers since they have farmed and earned in S1, and i think that they shouldnāt have it that easy this time.
After all I agree to disagree for the proportions of the allocations.
2 Likes
The fact that fewer people are using these features is no guarantee whatsoever for them having a higher percentage change that the users are real. Iāve shown in previous arguments that DCA and Limit are also being farmed, and regarding swap Iāve provided many ways that deduplication can be performed to weed out airdrop farmers, which can also be used to filter out farmers for any other features.
I also agree to disagree 
Wishing you the best of luck 
Jupiter uses Cloudflare insights to track users
āāCloudflare provides insight to your website traffic that you canāt get from other analytics programsāā Analytics Insights
Itās industry standard for any website to record IP addresses from visits, but I canāt say for sure that Jupiter is tracking and/or using these. Maybe they donāt.
The methods mentioned are just examples, but Iām sure they have a lot of data they can use for deduplication to weed out airdrop farmers.
Although I must admit that Cloudflare Analytics has a strong focus on Privacy Preserving anayltics.
@JUPWhale saw a post about you in a newsletter by solana floor I believe! Good stuff my man
1 Like
@lochie2001 Cool, I wasnāt aware so thanks for sharing! I found it here.
Jupuary 2025: What Could the Next Jupiter Airdrop Look Like?
Potential Jupuary 2025 Eligibility Criteria
Speaking with JUP & JUICE, Soju credited Jupiter DAOās creativity, stating āthere are a lot of wonderful proposals about Jupuary on JupResearchā. While the Jupiter team ultimately calls the shots, JupResearch proposals could be used to inspire certain eligibility criteria.
The most popular proposals on JupResearch, a Jupiter DAO forum, typically allocate various amounts of tokens to Jupiter products.
One proposal by JUPWhale suggests splitting the 700M scheduled for distribution based on trading volume, $JUP staking, $JLP holdership, DCA/Limit Order use, and perpetual trading volume.
Jupuary Proposals Likely to Favor $JUP Stakers
If any aspects of Jupuary eligibility criteria are to be voted on by Jupiter DAO, it is likely that results will heavily favor $JUP stakers.
As noted by JUPWhale on JupResearch, proposals on eligibility criteria present a conflict of interest wherein $JUP stakers will vote for whatever gives them the best allocation, regardless of whether or not that benefits the protocol.
According to Flipside data, 12.95% of Jupiter voting power is held in 50 wallets, representing only 0.008% of the total number of stakers. This suggests that a relatively small group of holders wield considerable influence over an ecosystem with hundreds of thousands of users.
Also:
1 Like
I think this is broadly a good proposal and I think it has been improved, the one thing Iād mention here is that maybe a minimum of 2 distinct months of utilization as an allocation requirement would be worthwhile as a sybil deterrent.
The $1000 minimum allo is better, $100 was too small.
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.
Thereās a reason we donāt give a linear voting power to Americans based on net worth. Because it simply isnāt democratic. Its a whales game for which their incentive is to milk the country (or protocol) of value in the short term then leave. 50-100 people having more voting power than a million smaller users is nonsensical, its virtue signalling towards being democratic or decentralized, but ultimately has nothing to do with it.
Now take that, but imagine those billionaires voted at the election for an instant 25% increase to their voting power. Come on, its silly.
This was distinctly the opposite approach of the last Jupuary for reference.
The strong disagreement is partially as a result of us already having the ASR. We simply donāt need a second, it adds nothing to the community which is the purpose of Jupuary to begin with.
As you suggest, perps should be tiered and in my opinion meaningfully capped at the top and bottom as well.
Apart from that, I think the allocation sizes all look reasonable. Good work broadly I just have a philosophical difference of opinion on the linear issue, I also again point out I think this was antithetical to the first drop and the purpose of Jupuary, and broadly tokens that allocate linearly have performed horribly.
1 Like
I think the tier rewards arenāt that meaningful and I donāt see them getting new potential users interested in playing with Jupiter. More people need to be weeded out. Jupiter in astrology means wealth and expansionā¦it should be bigger. Maybe include 2 million users, not 4 million.
I thought Jupiter wanted to attract more users of its products? Swaps should count, but other products should have multipliers.
1 Like
Thanks for the feedback. This change has been applied in the latest version. Check it out here:
Other products have good allocations in my proposal. Actual multipliers would be less meaningful and less direct as it depends on ones trading volume and it doesnāt ensure a next tier.
We have 15X the volume ($481.5B total compared to $30B last year) and also have 15X the users base. User base growth is 11X when you count those in the $1,000+ tiers compared to last year. Last year only 211,000 users were in tiers, now itās 2,300,000. We have 30% less tokens to allocate this Jupuary.
This results in a 20X smaller allocation on average.
But for users whoāve been active with trading, new features, in the community and staking/voting it can still be a nice amount of JUP.
The most active Jupiter users and community members get the most in my proposal. And the team has made it very clear; Jupiter is a gift, not a reward.
Please read this and the full reply for context.
The topic here is with allocating Jupiter to stakers, not about giving voting power to stakers.
Thatās 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 someoneās 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.
I agree with you ethically, logically and intrinsically. But thereās 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 itās unlikely weāll 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 thatās reasonable and could be done if the team, depending on if the team agrees or not.
Again I appreciate your feedback! Letās see which parts of the discussion theyāll mention in the call tomorrow at 3.30 UTC: https://www.youtube.com/live/HdrXWKPkUDU
2 Likes
To view the latest update, press on the Balanced Proposal for Jupuary 2025.
Multipliers would be meaningful for the other products in the jupiter eco because they have more value at this point. I actually think maybe swaps should be removed from the whole thingā¦thatās where most of the gaming is if we are being honest. If bigger rewards are given to DCA, Limit, VA and Perpsā¦there would be way more users interested in those products next year.
1 Like