No other comments than anxiously waiting for the official jupuary proposal and the voting itself.
2 Likes
Regarding Uniformity in distribution model designed so far
I still think this is still the best.
2 Likes
Thanks for your time to reply. About the approaches to the situations your source of information belongs to previous year and they are subject to jupuary 1. Those ideas might not be true for the next jupuary (if it happens). I didnt understand how long term or many time usage will exclude legit users either. One can use the platform for months one other can come this month, if it is not elimination but it is a bonus why would it exclude new(legit) user? Maybe new user will tend to stay in jupiverse from now on and use more commonly ?
Meanwhile, instead of trying to distribute the amount maybe focusing on what terms can be better to choose would be good. So team can handle the rest in the light of ideas (i guess allocation based ideas limits the criteria options because of trying to put things to places)
Look, you are free to support whatever idea youâd like, but objectively speaking Iâve pointed out many issues with that proposal which have not been addressed.
What is the point of bringing up another proposal in this topic, when it has been completely refuted with data and facts.
The author has shown no willingness to have an inclusive proposal based on data, and unlike myself has not made any changes based on the countless points of crucial feedback.
Reply 1: JUP Airdrop Proposal for Season 2 - 2025 - #3 by JUPWhale
Reply 2: JUP Airdrop Proposal for Season 2 - 2025 - #4 by JUPWhale
Reply 3: JUP Airdrop Proposal for Season 2 - 2025 - #36 by JUPWhale
Reply 4: JUP Airdrop Proposal for Season 2 - 2025 - #46 by JUPWhale
Reply 5: JUP Airdrop Proposal for Season 2 - 2025 - #51 by JUPWhale
Reply 6: JUP Airdrop Proposal for Season 2 - 2025 - #55 by JUPWhale
Reply 7: JUP Airdrop Proposal for Season 2 - 2025 - #60 by JUPWhale
Reply 8: JUP Airdrop Proposal for Season 2 - 2025 - #61 by JUPWhale
Reply 9: JUP Airdrop Proposal for Season 2 - 2025 - #65 by Shrekt
Reply 10: JUP Airdrop Proposal for Season 2 - 2025 - #91 by JUPWhale
Reply 11: JUP Airdrop Proposal for Season 2 - 2025 - #94 by JUPWhale
It goes on. You get the point. This discussion is not about opinions. This discussion is about reason, strong arguments, and creative ideaâs and solutions based on proof, data and facts.
1 Like
I think you may have overlooked something important in regards to your updated proposal. I think voters with at least the minimum voting power of ten Jup should get the same amount of airdrop as someone with 100, 1000, or 1000000 Jup based on how many votes they have participated in. This rewards everyone equally and decentralises voting powers. More voters with higher voting power. Am sure there are a lot of voters with only the ten Jup who have taken part in most of the voting and are committed but lack funds. This part of the airdrop could have a lock function.
2 Likes
He/she chose to not edit that or move further with it cos it is just a âPROPOSALâ and not trying to make sure , it is widely accepted.
It is just a proposal which may not have effect on future event
I like that proposal
1 Like
Voter should be rewarded based on cumulative voting power and not just JUP staked.
5 Likes
The only thing I think is still unbalanced is the allocation for non-leveraged volume X perps, because one has to bring a lot more funds to reach high non-leveraged volume compared to perps.
Overall seems balanced
1 Like
I have read a lot of the past proposals. I think new users who have adopted the dex in 2024 should get the largest portion then old users who already got a massive airdrop next then new non users after that. Definitely not big stakers who are already receiving a yearly airdrop by staking. If stakers are to get an airdrop then it should be based on how many votes not voting power. Give us all a chance to increase our voting power.
1 Like
Thanks for your feedback. What is meant here is the total voting power (number of JUP staked multiplied by the number of votes participated in). Iâll clarify this further.
2 Likes
Thanks for your feedback David Kim,
Yes they are different in funds you need to bring in but approximately equal in fees paid. For example to make $10K volume on swap or perps, a user would be looking at around $10 in fees minimum.
pretty legit after the edits
someone should make a hypothetical dune checker based on this now >:)
4 Likes
The 10$ fee necessity of 10k volume on perps doesnât mean that other types of 10$ fees can be excluded, so volume based perp doesnt make much sence. You can open 100$ position from 6 months ago and wait for bull run, the fee might reach to 10$ too , why would 10k volume 10$ fee will be more worthy than this 100$ 6 months and same 10$ fee position ?
1 Like
The problem is am sure there are a lot of people who could only vote with the minimum of ten Jup but who voted a lot. Best to put more voting power in more hands evenly as these are dedicated users too. Otherwise itâs still giving more Jup to whales who have already a lot of voting power. This is true decentralisation.
1 Like
Yes like I said, fee based allocation might be better for perps. But the team has most insight into this due to the data needed to get these criteria and allocations.
1 Like
This just gives more Jup to whales though. If you want true decentralised voting power then an even distribution on just votes is what is needed. This would also generate the best possible press (social media) in regards to that part of an allocation. Also stakers are already getting an allocation yearly and I think that should be more than plenty.
1 Like
Like i said , looking for ideas without trying to make allocations can be better so team can work on the rest.
1 Like
The reason for doing linear allocation to DAO / JUP Stakers was extensively discussed in my my initial proposal with over 300+ comments. If you go there you can find these discussions and arguments with the âin this topicâ search function.
1 Like
Yea youâve got a point, but the team also wants it to be easy to understand and transparent. If research nerds like ourselves canât figure it out with having access to the entire database of Jupiter transaction data and with scripting and coding, it most likely doesnât pass the ââeasy to understandââ test 
Linear distribution rewards everyone equally and in this model, introduced by this proposal, active voters get bigger piece than less active ones. This way loyal voters would get relatively more.
3 Likes