I think the fun vote is rather if cats or dogs are better. But we will see next week. It’s going to be exciting rest of the year for sure. 
6 Likes
Vote on continuation of JUPUARY can’t be a “FUN VOTE”
We will see what it entails next week
7 Likes
Great work on the proposal. I’m a community member, staker, 100% DAO voter, swap, dca, limit, and perp user.
I say send it.
4 Likes
Having no reward for the 0-1k range seems unlikely and makes little sense with the grow the pie ethos. I would expect a small reward around 5-20jup for the lowest tier.
Also think new OR more tiers need to be introduced rather than those used last year. i.e. 1k,10k, 100k 1m. This could be wider or larger
Downplays perps too much. The risk associated with trading is much higher. $1m vol gaining 925JUP seems off.
Finally, I may have missed it but how are the fees associated with the products considered I feel like this proposal missed some key points.
4 Likes
More info about the preliminary thoughts on Jupuary in this post.
4 Likes
It’s possible with $100+ volume but $0+ is not an option anymore with 15.5M wallets.
If you check my first proposal there was this allocation:
- All $100+ users²: 40M JUP / 3,885,443 users = 10 JUP per user
It would be possible to include the $100 - $1,000 tier. It’s around 1,585,443 users. I left it out now because some were against it, but I see no problem with either a $100+ or $1,000+ minimum.
What is clear, is that you can’t include all 11,361,557 wallets with volume below $100 because there are not that many users on Jupiter. These low volume wallets are mainly bots and farmers.
Yes we did. I proposed a new $10M+ tier (last round it was $1M+).
Perps are important. Perps volume represent ~ 27% of total trading volume, with swaps making up the other ~ 70% and DCA and Limit only ~ 2.5% combined.
Perps allocation was increased from 20M JUP in my first proposal to 120M JUP (120,000,000 JUP) worth over $120 Million USD in this latest balanced version.
The volume is leveraged up to 100X. With 100X, $1M volume can be made with $5K ($500K open and $500K close). It has about the same fees as doing $1M in swaps (no leverage).
It was considered. For example $1M perps volume with 100X leverage has about the same fees as $1M swap volume without leverage. These two (perps and swaps) represent 97.5% of all trading volume, so there’s nothing more to consider. I mentioned the math for it in one of the combined 500 replies on both proposals but feel free to calculate or test it.
925 JUP for $1M in perps volume might seem off to you, but remember Jupuary is a gift. It’s not a compensation or reward for activity, for fees paid or for anything else. it has never been that. This round allocations could be 25X+ less due to increased user counts, increased volumes and a 30% tokens supply deduction going off the Jupuary airdrop allocation.
2 Likes
POAP holders (planetary call NFT holders) are mentioned in the proposal as you can see here
It’s unlikely every single discord member will get an allocation, as many are bots and/or farmers. It will likely be based on actual contribution, checked by the team or a team-appointed commission.
2 Likes
Great, I’m glad you like it - as many others did!
1 Like
Hi thanks for your comments and it’s duly noted. The team also is reading these.
This and the other things you mentioned have been discussed in so much length in the 500+ comments of both topics (this one and my initial proposal and analysis) that I feel it unnecessary to fall into repetition.
It would be too much to quote to you because several pages were written about it and if you want to know you could find the comments with the Cmnd + F / Cntr + F search function.
1 Like
I think this was covered in my comment.
The number of votes is already included in the total voting power.
The linear allocation is based on (JUP Staked multiplied by Votes cast = Total Votes).
2 Likes
Yes it’s not just about JUP staked or votes cast. It’s the combination of those thoughout time.
My linear allocation proposal is based on (JUP Staked multiplied by Votes cast = Total Votes).
Linear is fine for the DAO because these users paid for their tokens or at least HODL’ed them.
We don’t need to worry about 20 JUP Stakers in my proposal because their allocation would ‘‘only’’ be around 5 JUP.
4 Likes
It says 110M, not 350M. Please read carefully before you comment. The rest is explained below:
2 Likes
Unless I’m incredibly mistaken and missing something, the claim that perps fees for 1m volume with 100x leverage is the same as doing 1m swap volume without leverage is not true, not even remotely close either.
You might have a little bit in slippage or fees associated with the router, but it will be nowhere near the same as with perps.
Jupiter itself doesn’t charge a swap fee, so the claim that perps leverage fees cost the same is simply wrong.
If you’ve used perps which it sounds like maybe you haven’t, you’d see this is the case very, very quickly.
With this distinction being the case and swaps NOT having the same fees for the same amount of volume in perps, I don’t think the claim that we should equate volume here with the same reward is true. If we were simply to equate fees + slippage etc, then perps should reward 10x higher.
4 Likes
So with perp fees.
If you do 2x leverage you have 2x fees
If you do 100x you have 100x the fees
I mean they are minimal but worth considering
4 Likes
I agree with most of what’s written in this proposal. However I am just curious how you will change the allocations if we change some of the criteria. Of course this is a community-refined proposal but still it is by no way final. Also, as somebody mentioned somewhere, the community members that has voice here are mostly coming from the stakers and voters and not from the greater Jupiter users and/or potentially Jupiter community members. My point is simply, maybe accommodating a few criteria change somehow makes sense if we consider current and potential stakeholders.
These are the two criteria I am thinking right now.
-
What if we just include all trading volume under one category? That means Swaps, LOs, DCAs, and Perps volume are all under one unified category we might call Trading Volume. We can put a lower weight (or higher) for Perps because a portion of Perps fees goes to JLP holder anyway and only a portion goes to Jupiter. We can also put weights for Swaps, LOs and DCAs if that make sense.
-
Secondly, what if we include $100+ volume in the allocation?
How will you change allocations if you consider either of the two criteria above. How about if we consider both? Ultimately does changing the criteria to above make sense at all? Or if it does make sense to a set of people, who could they be or should we prioritize them?
3 Likes
there isnt really anyone else apart that doesnt stake imo
3 Likes
I was replying to a person who suggested 350 million if I remember correctly. Sorry if it confused the situation. I think it’s very clear what I am saying though in general and others have liked and commented in agreement with positive feedback and agreement.
3 Likes
This is easily the most considered draft proposal from all. Would I personally vote for it as it is, no. But I would not vote for other draft proposals here either as they are. Some are incomplete or favour certain groups too heavily in my view. I acknowledge the time and energy put in to this and it’s a good start as we are getting closer to the official one. That being said, I have given my own views and I feel like I have nothing more to add. The team reads all the comments and meow and the crew will try to make the official proposal a one which will be passed by the DAO.
I will continue giving feedback once the official draft is out.
Exciting times. Good luck everyone! 
6 Likes
Also overall your proposal is fair. Just the main point is I feel there are probably a lot of people who staked ten plus Jup but who have been voting all year, probably new users trying out the dexes voting system who are genuinely interested and should also be gifted more than a few Jup. Otherwise a person who today voted once with 1000 Jup can just claim a lot more Jup compared to a genuine user. Also I feel excluding people under 100$ is also not good. As getting rid of Sybil farmers should be handled separately. Personally I have organically over 100k volume and could have gotten even higher if I had done wash trading. I believe new users who are genuine need to get a big allocation this round because they are also important for a growing ecosystem. Next round the amount staked in order to vote could be 50 Jup but for obvious reasons the barrier to entry can not be too high either.
3 Likes
This proposal already includes all trading volume and only splits it into 2 categories. The total trading volume is ~ $481.5B.
The main trading volume category in my proposal includes $344B swap volume, ~ $6B DCA volume and $1.5B Limit volume. The perps volume is on it’s own with $130B volume (since it’s a very different type of volume with leverage and different fees).
When you read the proposal again, and read every detail, it will become more clear.
The $100+ category was actually included in my initial proposal and analysis:
But the $100+ tier was removed because some people argued against it, and we used the 40M JUP for Jupiter Perps instead.
2 Likes