Jupiter JUP Airdrop: Balanced Proposal for Jupuary 2025

Jupiter airdrop 2025 round2 bots wallets statitics

Catetory <$1000 $1000-$10K $10K-$100K $100K-$1M $1M-$10M >$10M
Bots 913976 159295 67611 21489 6097 1866
Total 13197757 1419121 664448 182332 31920 4422
% 6.93 11.22 10.18 11.79 19.1 42.2

source jupiter-airdrop-round2-bots-data
All wallets for round2 volume data

Adjusted based on the latest data

Category <$1000 $1000-$10K $10K-$100K $100K-$1M $1M-$10M >$10M
Bots 913976 159295 67611 21489 6097 1866
Total 12826814 1997624 925032 249177 42834 5303
% 7.13 7.97 7.31 8.62 14.23 35.19

also if you want to check if your wallet is in the bots table,
please query here 2025 Solana bots check

4 Likes

Wow that great you could get this data. Thank you

Hey guidebee this is cool data!

We knew this in general, but not in specifics.

I don’t think 35.19% is a lot actually. It means ~ 65% of users at the $10M+ level are non-bots.

That means:

  • 4,422 users x 0.3519% = 1556 bots
  • 4,422 users x 0.6481% = 2866 humans (non-bots)

I’ll end this with a quote from the Jupuary airdrop announcement from last year by Meow (reposted by Soju).

I think the best way to combat bot farmers or Sybil farmers is the following:

  1. USDC/USDT txn not counted in volume
  2. Volume/ perps / DCA ect to only account for 10% of airdrop
  3. 90% to be from community based onboarding such as - joining discord and having cadet / cat if culture role , presence on twitter, attending planitary calls, engaging on JUP research ect
  4. Stakers get either 100 , 200 or 300 $JUP bonus (not multiplier)

This way, if bots do slip through the cracks it will be insignificant

2 Likes

The previous count(4422) is outdated because the query lacked a specified date range, causing variations with each run.

I also found that some wallets labeled as bots did not clearly demonstrate bot behaviors. However, I acknowledge that bots play a vital role in DEX operations by balancing exchange pools. Notably, some bots are quite sophisticated.

These bots also incur substantial transaction costs, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars, plus expenses for RPC calls. Ultimately, the JUP team will decide on the final airdrop distribution strategy.

1 Like

Here’s data from the Jupiter team, I guess they might use different data source or only use input_usd instead of (input_usd + output_usd, which doubles the volume)

1 Like

I think that is a lot of bots wow seeing the reality of how many were trying to farm the airdrop. Glad for our sake they will be excluded.

1 Like

I think what they are hinting at is- bc there is so many users they are going to limit the amount of people; or consider volume as the smallest part of the criteria.

I’m only expecting 10-20% of criteria to be based upon volume alone. I expect the other 70% to be carrots and good cats and 10% for stakers (as a one off bonus)

1 Like

I think volume will play an important part :-), Jupiter is a trading platform, and volume is critical for its existence.

1 Like

I think volume will be used a bit but also if users have been using dca ape and other tools like lock tokens onboarding new users and overall use of the platform. Amount of transactions perhaps as well. Probably using all of these indicators would help find real users quite easily. It’s what I would do anyways. But until the drop happens it’s anyone’s guess. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Perps/DCA/Limit order users are so few that there are likely barely any sybils on it so it’s more likely an overkill.

I agree on 1. and 4.

1 Like

It’s obvious that it was extremely farm from swap options because of airdrop. I think the power users should be more consider too people whom only farming through swap. Some power users use more than 4 Jupiter products, lock, Ape, DCA, VA, and stake.
People who never unstake ASR, top up ASR without selling and at least votes like 15 to 17 vote deserved onchain recognition. Jupiter team are super intelligent.

1 Like

Yeah for sure the use of multiple products may suggest they are more legit

We won’t have it completely bullet proof

1 Like