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

[JUPWhale]

@Jazy

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.

I strongly disagree for two important reasons.

1. The fact that staking JUP would reward ~ 48.5% from ASR + 15.9% from Jupuary totalling 64.4% in my opinion is more than enough incentive for JUP whales to HODL JUP and to stake.

2. Most farming can be eliminated with deduplication through blockchain analysis and through anti-Sybil measures.

   Another ~ 11.3 Million low quality spam users / bots and airdrop farmers with less than $100 in total trading volume would also be excluded from the JUP airdrop.

@JUPWhale

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 with less than $100 in total trading volume.

[JUPWhale]

@Jeanlucbb0

Overall a very impressive piece

Thank you @Jeanlucbb0!

@Jeanlucbb0

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.

Fair point. My reason for keeping the linear allocation for perps is that perps cost around 20% in fees for any position resulting in $2,000 of fees on $10,000 in collateral, whereas swaps would cost around ~ $5 - $25+ per $10,000 in volume depending on the asset swapped, the fees, routes, slippage and liquidity.

@Jeanlucbb0

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.

$1000+ is indeed a good starting point for the majority of the allocation (660M JUP).

The $100+ tier has only 10 JUP per wallet allocated totalling 40M JUP, which weeds out 11.3 Million wallets already.

@JUPWhale

² $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. Further deduplication may also need to be performed.

You’re saying:

@Jeanlucbb0

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.

But we shouldn’t forget most people (like ourselves) discussing these topics are from North America, Europe and wealthier Asian countries and other wealthy nations where $100 of total volume may not have any significance.

But here is my comment on the argument for including $100+ from a previous reply:

@JUPWhale

I do think it remains important to consider sub-$1000 volume users as there are many legitimate users in some countries in for example Africa, South America and Asia for whom $100+ or even $10+ is significant trading volume. The good thing is that a 10 JUP airdrop (or a bit more after deduplication) will also be a significant holding for these users relative to their trading volume.

About your other point:

@Jeanlucbb0

If 7 million sybil wallets had $100 in volume, this could potentially create another 70 million of value worth in airdrop across these.

There are only 3,885,443 wallets in the $100+ tier with only 40M JUP (5.7% of the total airdrop) allocated:

@JUPWhale

• All $100+ users²: 40M JUP / 3,885,443 users = 10 JUP per user
• $0 - $100 wallets²: No Allocation / 11,361,557 users = 0 JUP per wallet

[Jazy]

I’ll stop the argument here because I don’t think there’s any point in continuing. It seems that you’re ignoring my arguments and just trying to justify things in a way that benefits you, not the DAO.

Your proposal clearly comes from someone unhappy with their staking performance and trying to push the narrative that “product users” are more important than the stakers. Obviously, this is likely because it benefits your position.

In my opinion, it’s just a really bad proposal.

I’m not going to lie: of course, I’m more in favor of a 100% Jupuary distribution for stakers because it would benefit me too. But I also use Jupiter products daily, so I’d be well-situated in your structure.

Yet even with that in mind, it still looks like a terrible proposal to me. It benefits farmers over everyone else and pushes stakers and whales to unlock their tokens and move to another project.

I’m sure that if this distribution proposal came to a vote, it would never pass. And even if, by some chance, it did, many stakers would simply unlock and move to another project that truly values the effort of participating in governance.

(Myself included.)

P.S. – And yes, the point of ASR is to reward staking, but it becomes irrelevant when you’re injecting more tokens in a single day to “users” than stakers can earn from ASR over almost two years.

(Under your method.)

[JUPWhale]

@Jazy

I’ll stop the argument here because I don’t think there’s any point in continuing.

Let’s agree to disagree. The team will be tasked with the final proposal considering all users and stakeholders.

I’m not ignoring your arguments but replying to it. You on the other hand seem to ignore my comment here:

@Jazy

What’s the point of rewarding people who don’t hold or stake JUP?

''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.

It’s a balanced community-refined distribution proposal that is inclusive and comprehensive - providing sufficient decentralisation and distribution of JUP.‘’

@Jazy

just trying to justify things in a way that benefits you, not the DAO.

Jupuary is not about benefitting the DAO. It’s not about me either. Jupuary is about distributing JUP to all 3,885,443+ Jupiter users and stakeholders.

Jupuary is about distributing 40% (now 28.85) of JUP supply to the community as laid out in the JUP tokenomics. This 40% has now been reduced to 28.85% after 215M unclaimed JUP going to ASR and the 30% burn of 900M JUP.

@Jazy

Your proposal clearly comes from someone unhappy with their staking performance and trying to push the narrative that “product users” are more important than the stakers.

No. That’s not the case. Jupuary is about distributing JUP to the community. It’s not about who is more important or even about who deserves a reward.

The base of Jupiter users and stakeholders includes the DAO / JUP Stakers, Community contributors, New Feature Users, Perpetual Traders, JLP holders, $10M+ tier, $1M - $10M tier, $100K - $1M tier, $10K - $100K tier, $1K - $10K tier and $100+ users.

The balanced community-refined distribution proposal is inclusive and comprehensive - providing sufficient decentralisation and distribution of JUP.

It includes the broad base of Jupiter users and stakeholders: DAO / JUP Stakers, Community contributors, New Feature Users, Perpetual Traders, JLP holders, $10M+ tier, $1M - $10M tier, $100K - $1M tier, $10K - $100K tier, $1K - $10K tier and $100+ users.

@Jazy

I’m not going to lie: of course, I’m more in favor of a 100% Jupuary distribution for stakers because it would benefit me too.

That is exactly why I wrote ‘‘Jupuary Round 2: Conflict of Interest Among JUP Stakers’’

@Jazy

pushes stakers and whales to unlock their tokens and move to another project.

You’re saying that 64.4% additional JUP as reward is not enough. That’s crazy. I am certain that most whales and JUP stakers don’t see it that way.

There’s not any other $1B+ project I know of where you can get 64.4% additional tokens from holding and staking.

The fact that staking JUP would reward ~ 48.5% from ASR + 15.9% from Jupuary totalling 64.4% in my opinion is more than enough incentive for JUP whales to HODL JUP and to stake.

@Jazy

P.S. – And yes, the point of ASR is to reward staking, but it becomes irrelevant when you’re injecting more tokens in a single day to “users” than stakers can earn from ASR over almost two years.

It’s not about how many tokens are distributed, but about how such distribution theoretically could effect the staker by effecting the price of JUP.

The injection of 50% new tokens could cause at the most 33% price decrease (assuming everyone sells their JUP, which is statistically impossible).

A 1% - 20% sell rate is much more realistic, only causing a few percent price decrease due to ‘inflation’. A few 10’s of million JUP being sold from the airdrop can easily be absorbed by the market.

With a FDV of $10 Billion and already #56 on CMC within one year, I think JUP is doing great and there is no need to fear a 33% downturn in the price from a so-called 50% ‘‘inflation’’. Many airdrop beneficiaries won’t sell their JUP.

Even if there would be a 33% price downturn, the 48.5% from ASR + 15.9% from Jupuary totalling 64.4% would more than cover that.

[Delyo]

Tiered system can only be gamed if someone has inside info, while it usually brings further decentralization of the token holdings unlike the linear system

[MegaB1973]

@JUPWhale

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.

I know, but I am allowed to disagree

@JUPWhale

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.

I know, but I don’t think this is enough. The threshold for JUP airdrop should increase significantly given not just growth in the ecosystem, but also growth in the Sol price over the past year (10x). It’s really not very difficult for a wallet to transact with $100 is it? That’s definitely going to be farming level transactions - why should someone doing $100 volume get 10 JUP per your proposal? That’s absurd! (in my opinion…)

[MegaB1973]

@Jazy

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.

Simple.

I completely agree @Jazy. There is a balance of course, but such a small portion to JUP stakers, and such a big portion available to such low level users is only going to play into all the airdrop farmers who have no doubt been spamming the ecosystem in anticipation of this airdrop. It should be harder to get the airdrop this year to prevent this as I have said multiple times.

It feels like there is a lot of bias in your posts @JUPWhale and you are making a lot of assumptions on behalf of JUP which I don’t necessarily agree with.

Ultimately this will be decided by the DAO.

[JUPWhale]

@MegaB1973

growth in the Sol price over the past year (10x)

Please try to stay factual and truthful in your statements. The price of SOL 1 year ago was $38.51 and today $174.62 which is 4.5X and not 10X.

@MegaB1973

It’s really not very difficult for a wallet to transact with $100 is it? That’s definitely going to be farming level transactions - why should someone doing $100 volume get 10 JUP per your proposal? That’s absurd! (in my opinion…)

Further deduplication and anti-Sybil needs to also be applied by the team to counter farming:

@JUPWhale

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.

But we shouldn’t forget most people (like ourselves) discussing these topics are from North America, Europe and wealthier Asian countries and other wealthy nations where $100 of total volume may not have any significance.

Here is my comment on including $100+ from a previous reply:

@JUPWhale

I do think it remains important to consider sub-$1000 volume users as there are many legitimate users in some countries in for example Africa, South America and Asia for whom $100+ or even $10+ is significant trading volume. The good thing is that a 10 JUP airdrop (or a bit more after deduplication) will also be a significant holding for these users relative to their trading volume.

[MegaB1973]

@JUPWhale

Please try to stay factual and truthful in your statements. The price of SOL 1 year ago was $38.51 and today $174.62 which is 4.5X and not 10X.

I meant generally of course. If I wanted to be factual I’d have quoted dates. Broadly, from the bottom of Sol, to ca. the top of the rebound is roughly 20 - 200 (10x) in the time since the last snapshot was taken. That’s a lot of growth.

@JUPWhale

But we shouldn’t forget most people (like ourselves) discussing these topics are from North America, Europe and wealthier Asian countries and other wealthy nations where $100 of total volume may not have any significance.

Here is my comment on including $100+ from a previous reply:

Yes, and again, I am allowed to disagree with you! I don’t need you to keep showing me your comments which reinforce your point

[JUPWhale]

@MegaB1973

such a small portion to JUP stakers, and such a big portion available to such low level users is only going to play into all the airdrop farmers

It seems like you have not properly read my proposal. The largest part of 94.4% of the allocation (660M out of 700M) would go to:

The DAO / JUP Stakers, Community contributors, New Feature Users, Perpetual Traders, JLP holders, $10M+ tier, $1M - $10M tier, $100K - $1M tier, $10K - $100K tier, $1K - $10K tier.

Only 5.6% (40M out of 700M) was set to go to $100+ users, after already filtering out 11.3 Million sub < $100 volume users.

Then the proposal includes adjusted volume and futher deduplication and anti-Sybil. I assume you know the meaning of this in relation to airdrop farming.

@Jazy

What’s the point of rewarding people who don’t hold or stake JUP?

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.

It’s a balanced community-refined distribution proposal that is inclusive and comprehensive - providing sufficient decentralisation and distribution of JUP.

@Jazy

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.

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.

@Jazy

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.

I strongly disagree for two important reasons.

1. The fact that staking JUP would reward ~ 48.5% from ASR + 15.9% from Jupuary totalling 64.4% in my opinion is more than enough incentive for JUP whales to HODL JUP and to stake.
2. Most farming can be eliminated with deduplication through blockchain analysis and through anti-Sybil measures.Another ~ 11.3 Million low quality spam users / bots and airdrop farmers with less than $100 in total trading volume would also be excluded from the JUP airdrop.

@JUPWhale

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 with less than $100 in total trading volume.

[SWM]

I think a high allocation should go to new qualifying wallets. I’m ok with getting less and growing jupiters community

[SWM]

Easy. Drop it to qualifying new wallets. I am absolutely ok taking less to grow the community.

[Jazy]

Why focus on new wallets?

If someone is genuinely interested in learning about and being part of the Jupiverse, they can simply buy JUP and stake it.

If these “new wallets” haven’t made at least that small effort to join our ecosystem, in my opinion, they shouldn’t be part of Jupuary.

[SWM]

Yeah… will be interesting to see what approach the team takes.

[sgrgw]

I can argue with that because I know at least 2 people who have sybilled different protocols (and many more who I don’t know). Let me put it this way - those people have money, like more than enough money and whenever they see opportunity they take action. If you find a proof that the costs of swapping/making 10m volume is equal or higher than the dollar equivalent of 9045 JUP then it’s case closed. It is very naive to think that farmers are only those with 100$ or below in volume. Times are very different from a year ago and even more different than 2 years ago

[JUPWhale]

Fair point, but we’re only looking at 4,422 users for the $10M+ tier. In theory that tier could contain a few farmers but I don’t think it would even be worth the risk considering the costs and the uncertainty about Jupuary.

These guys won’t have enough certainty about the airdrop distribution, hence not taking the risk to spend $2,500 - $7,500+++ on generating $10M+ volume with zero guarantee of getting 9,045 JUP (which is just speculation from a community member (me) anyways).

The $0 - $100 tier on the other hand is full with 11,361,557 low quality low volume wallets. A lot of that isn’t even intentional farming but mainly buy bots to manipulate memecoin trending algo’s by increasing the unique maker count and transaction count.

[JUPWhale]

@MegaB1973

I meant generally of course. If I wanted to be factual I’d have quoted dates. Broadly, from the bottom of Sol, to ca. the top of the rebound is roughly 20 - 200 (10x) in the time since the last snapshot was taken. That’s a lot of growth.

In the time that the last snapshot was taken SOL went from $38.51 to $174.62 which is 4.5X. That 10X is only possible by including pre-snapshot dates, which aren’t relevant for round 2.

[JUPWhale]

Jupuary is meant to distribute JUP to the community of Jupiter users.

There is 10B JUP (part being burned now). Just 1.35B is in circulation so far.

The goal of Jupuary is to bring 40% (28.85% after the burn and unclaimed JUP) of total JUP into circulation by fairly distributing it among the community of Jupiter users and stakeholders.

785 Million (7.85% of JUP supply) was successfully brought into circulation in round 1, with the 215M unclaimed JUP going to reward JUP stakers (ASR).

It then doesn’t make any sense to say: ‘‘You can also just buy JUP’’. Sure they can but that has nothing to do with the point of the distributing 40% (28.85% after the burn) JUP according to the tokenomics - through 4 (or 3) rounds of Jupuary.

The goal of Jupuary is to put JUP into the hands of legitimate Jupiter users, who may or may not yet be JUP holders.

That’s why I’m proposing a balanced distribution to the DAO / JUP Stakers, Community contributors, New Feature Users, Perpetual Traders, JLP holders, $10M+ tier, $1M - $10M tier, $100K - $1M tier, $10K - $100K tier, $1K - $10K tier, $100+ tier.

You seem to have an issue with JUP tokenomics, but that’s the token you bought into and the 40% (28.85% after the burn) JUP is a part of that.

And it doesn’t make sense to reply: ‘‘just airdrop it to JUP holders / stakers’’ as this was never meant by Meow or the Jupiter team when they mentioned Jupuary as a broad inclusive growth oriented distribution to the millions of Jupiter users.

[BTC]

Linear is best for stakers as they have invested their own money.
Tiered better for all other criteria. Tiered system has been gamed already in Jupanuary and ASR. It will be gamed again.

Example of Tiered being gamed (doesn’t include undetectable sybils):

Ranking JUP voters

Fair enough, but ETH and SOL are solid examples of linear distribution working in practise. Everyone voting in these DAO votes earned their JUP including whales. Tiered has given significant % gains to those who game LFG votes and will give JUP to people that gamed the system with undectable sybils hence linear is best. Tiered is best for other allocations i.e. swap, limit order, DVA/VA, bridge, perps usage, community contribution etc. An example with 1 detectable sybil cluster: 0.1 JUP stake…

[lochie2001]

@BTC

Tiered system has been gamed already in Jupanuary and ASR. It will be gamed again.

Idk i was a fan of the tiered, even though i got one of the bottom ones last year. With tiers, the benfits is they real Og cats out there get jup in thier hand and are less likely to dump