There is no 50% inflation if it’s already known in advance and priced into JUP.”
Inflation is about new tokens entering circulation, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the price. So, I don’t see any reason to bring that up.
I never said inflation is bad, and it will happen whether it’s through Jupuary or not. Meow already mentioned there are no plans to change the tokenomics, so I’m not sure why you’re making it seem like I said inflation is bad.
Why should people who use Jupiter products be rewarded in Jupuary?
They use the products because they’re GREAT and help with their daily tasks on Solana.
Answer me this: Why do I use Solana every day but never receive SOL as a gift from the network?
I’m very loyal, I use it daily, and even pay gas fees in transactions… But for some reason, they reward the new SOL to those who stake and contribute to the network, not to those who just use the product.
Think about that.
The allocation of the first Jupuary has nothing to do with the second one (if it happens). Saying there’s a conflict of interest with stakers is kind of pointless, since we didn’t choose to be in this position—the team decided on this method.”
Why are you worried about how much money someone else gets when they spent $10mil on their bag? Of course they get millions, they risked millions into JUP.
Whales can unstake, farm $10mil on 50 wallets with their size and get the top volume tier.
Whales paid for their JUP and staked with a 30 day unstake taking on risk as they believe in JUP, of course they get larger allocations.
Whales can sybil too. Split their JUP to farm more JUP or vote with many wallets. Personally have done this as I assumed people would want tiers
I keep saying that 32m ‘‘users’’ with 1m+$ volume are not real. Volume is easiest metric to be gamed and most importantly - it can easily be seen that it is. It is far more riskier to participate through staking and while not immune to sybilling - at least whatever amount of money the ‘‘farmer’’ has put it stays inside the system and not making 10s of millions volume with only 100k. Last but not least - the projects that go down in history as successful airdrops are the ones who make smaller number of people rich, not those who give peanuts to everybody because that way it’s 100% guarantee every user will be left disappointed.
Overall a very impressive piece, a small issue I have is the perpetual volume section being entirely linear, in contrast to the spot volume being tiered. No reason why perps ought not to be tiered as well.
I’d also cut the bottom allocation out to avoid sybil behaviour which is clearly an issue looking at the number of wallets involved now.
Realistically, any real user over a year or even a few months of use ought to have $1000 in volume, I would cut the allocation to zero below this for that reason. Likely already millions of sybils merely creating a wallet and swapping $50 back and forth, this should not be enough for a drop, even of $10 in value.
If 7 million sybil wallets had $100 in volume, this could potentially create another 70 million of value worth in airdrop across these.
I potentially agree with you, but the product doesn’t thrive further than it does already with esoteric criteria based on “niche” products.
Community absolutely is an important aspect to reward, and so are those participating in governance.
Even if not primary criteria, as the primary use case of the product swaps should still be somewhere around centre stage, but the perpetuals section of the dex is a huge source of potential future growth and ought to be a huge part of the one stop shop that Jupiter offers. Its can and should be fundamental to the future of Jup broadly.
I’d axe “niche products” and if using them as criteria they should be a smaller portion of allocation, perps volume deserves centre stage just as governance and community likely ought to.
I propose that the allocation going to DAO voters would be related to total JUP received as ASR.
JUP received as ASR is based on how long person has been staking, how many proposals one has voted and how much JUP has been staked during each vote.
This way it can’t be gamed by suddenly buying big amounts of JUP, staking and voting once. This would favor those who have been staking and voting longer time.
I don’t think I am. I’m making the point that the proposal as you have set out, plays right into airdrop farmers hands. Don’t focus on the boundaries I have suggested, they aren’t based on anything. My point is that JUP should maintain the tiers, and increase the requirements needed to enter those tiers. That way, people who genuinely use the protocol are rewarded - and an actual reward, rather than 18 JUP or something for anyone who’s traded $100
Of course it does. It is part of the same 40% of the JUP tokenomics.
I’m not saying it’s the fault of JUP stakers. Just saying it’s something important to consider when putting new proposals up for vote.
Especially proposals where JUP stakers are deciding about JUP stakers voting about rewards for JUP stakers (voting about decisions concerning their own significant interests, hence pointing out a clear conflict of interest).
Because a lot of SOL is in the hands of VC’s. Solana SOL didn’t have a 40% community distribution as part of their tokenomics, ensuring a balancedcommunity-refined distribution that is inclusive and comprehensive - providing sufficient decentralisation and distribution.
Solana’s enhanced distribution happened mainly through extreme volatility and through time.
Fair point and here are my comments on inflation:
Regarding your other statement:
The inflation argument was used by some to argue for cancelling Jupuary or not distribution the 700M JUP to the 3.9 Million Jupiter users.
A balancedcommunity-refined distribution proposal that is inclusive and comprehensive - providing sufficient decentralisation and distribution of JUP is important and ‘inflation’ isn’t a valid reason IMO to not have this taking place.
This has already been discussed in the comments above, it would only reward 1% of users, leaving out 99% of users and up to 90% of legitimate users. It’s not an option considering the 10X+ growth of Jupiter.
About your other point:
Applying a minimum volume requirement of $100+ would make ~ 3.9M users (source) instead of 15.25M wallets. This effectively weeds out around ~ 11.3 Million low quality spam users / bots and airdrop farmers.
Further deduplication and anti-Sybil needs to also be applied by the team. That’s why it’s a proposal for adjusted volume-based tiers.
Love the thought that is put into this proposal. The aspect that it covers all forms of activity makes the final edition of the proposal worth a shot!
I would also suggest that to counter the possibility that this huge JUP allocation coming into circulation which could make JUP price have a considerable dip, the Jupuary airdrop should be directly awarded as staked JUP and not liquid JUP. This would increase probability of people voting and not dumping.
Some notes. I think there is too much hype for this airdrop and I think it will be much worse than the first one, both because there are x16 new wallets, and almost x10 in volume, to which we would have to add the reduction of the supply (is it confirmed that it will be reduced by 30% in each Jupuary or will one of them be eliminated?).
However, I think this is good for the community: those of us who really trust Jupiter and use its tools because we need them, will see this simply as a reward for trusting the Jupiter ecosystem and that the airdrop ends up in those hands, I think it will be even better for the ecosystem.
As for holding JLP, it is not the best criterion in my opinion, but I understand that it is much easier to monitor. I see, for example, much more important, that there is sufficient liquidity in the DEXs of this token since it is what really helps the ecosystem to function correctly.
Jupiter now is different compared to last year.
Compared to the first calculation only focus on swap volume i agree with this new iteration.
including perps, ape, stake, vote, etc. in the calculation is the right move, Jupiter is more than swap exchange.
Everything in Jupiter ecosystem should be addressed.
Like it or not, allocating just 10% of the Jupuary to stakers is a bad decision and sends a clear message: don’t stake JUP, just farm the airdrop next year.
What’s the point of rewarding people who don’t hold or stake JUP?
Last year, it made sense because there were no tokens in circulation, and the only way to track people interested in contributing to the project was through volume. This year, that’s not the case.
Actually it’s really simple:
Do you want to be part of the Jupiverse and contribute to the project?
Just go buy and stake 50 JUP to join the DAO.
If you’re not willing to make even that small effort, you shouldn’t be part of Jupuary.
What number are you referring to? 32m users with $1M+ volume isn’t a thing.
Out of all 15,247,000 users, there are just 3,885,443 users with $100+ volume.
There are only 31,920 users with $1M+ volume and 4,422 users with $10M+.
That’s not true as volume based ‘gaming’ can easily be filtered out with deduplication and anti-Sybil measures, as well as the proposed:
‘’$100 minimum volume requirement used to reduce the general user base from ~ 15.25 Million wallets to ~ 3.9 Million users. This effectively weeds out around ~ 11.36 Million low quality spam users / bots and airdrop farmers. No allocation for wallets with < $100 volume.‘’
It is not a reward for people who don’t hold or stake JUP.
Jupuary is a part of the 40% distribution to the community as laid out in the JUP tokenomics. It provides a fair distribution and decentralisation method for JUP.
JUP has not yet been fully distributed. It’s about putting JUP into the hands of the Jupiter community. The JUP distribution process takes years like @meow said.
Where I started the topic with an analysis and a mainly swap volume based proposal, it now indeed became a community effort and proposal. The current proposal is a product of a lot of community discussion and feedback.
This has not been confirmed and has only been assumed by the community.
I’m using the minimum allocation of 700M here so it can only get better
@meow actually said he believes we need two more rounds of Jupuary, which I think he means round 2 and round 3 by. If the round 4 allocation would be spread over round 2 and 3 it would give round 2 and 3 1.05B JUP instead.
Instead of 3 x 700M = 2.1B remaining for community distribution
it would be 2 x 1.05B = 2.1B remaining for community distribution
Yes that is exactly the point of the analysis and has been clearly stated in the conclusion of the post:
It depends how complex the teams wants to make it regarding below.
I don’t think it should be a criterium because we want the airdrop to be inclusive also of newer users who were part of Jupiter before the snapshot / deadline.
But it could be added as a multiplication factor on the volume for example. But also this is complex because it would change the allocation and volumes of the others.
Yea for this it might be good to also check average amount held over different snapshots (I’m sure the team has at least a monthly - if not daily - snapshot).
