I posted this pics on JUP discord in the morning
I will post it again
I will change the context of the pics
You should not tell people to make use of their resources for what they want to use it for
“It is theirs and they chose to use it for what they want to”
The fact that they can vote with 10 JUP and went ahead to vote with 100k does not mean they should be treated same way as people that vote with 10 JUP alone cos that is just what they got
“That easy to understand” is subject of “after” the jupuary, about how things have been decided. So it is not a problem right now. They can decide, execute and announce it , that is it. It doesn’t make it hard to understand even it includes 100 different details. And also it makes it easier to understand if every possible scenario is being talked in here just like you and all other commentaries did. And as i said before , in my opinion “without trying to allocate the amount” it is better to come up with ideas and how things can be taken into consideration
I’m not going to repeat myself much in this thread because it has all been discussed already and almost everyone without exception is convinced linear is more suitable.
The main reason is that staked JUP = USD investment value and volume isn’t.
This data speaks for itself: https://dune.com/d3xter/staked-jup
That’s what I do
Cos I don’t know how to make good allocation
Makes sense. You bring up a valid point.
I read them, good work but disagree. That Dao proposal should only be considered for the yearly airdrop stakers are already receiving. This is a separate airdrop and as you have suggested is aimed at an entirely different group of people. Most new users in 24 would not have staked more than ten Jup but voted and started to get involved. It was all new to them. Hence why I believe new users of 24 also should get the most out of this one. By either looking at their volume over the year and voting amounts. Not voting power or how much Jup one owns. The first airdrop gave a lot and those who staked it get a separate yearly airdrop. Decentralised is the key no 
almost everyone without exception is convinced linear is more suitable.
Yeah but everyone in this group probably has a large stake in Jup right
Let’s say someone spent a million to buy and stake JUP and another person spent 10 dollars to do the same. Do you think it would be fair to reward these two with same allocation?
I have a large stake, and I would prefer linear if I should decide
Just do it by ranks, and place a cap for the biggest whales
simple
There can be cumulative linear solution too. As it has been stated before many people believes 1000 jup 1 time vote and 100 jup 10 times vote might be treated differently because the purpose of DAO is to make people to participate in discussions. If the focus point is joining the decision making process , a person with more vote participation has done it better than a person with low vote participation. Maybe there can be a mathematical logical solution like a small multiplyer or bonus kind of things among same voted power users with different participation numbers
Perhaps I am missing something so if you have more Jup staked then you get a bigger airdrop. Right? More voting power + more votes more Jup. 10 Jup x 11 votes = 110 jup.
100000 jup x 11 votes = 1100000 jup
You have no right to buy that yacht since you are rich , give it to me i have 10 $ , death to the rich people 
Yes as they probably got it as an airdrop in the first place and this airdrop has nothing to do with the yearly airdrop they are already getting. This airdrop is aimed at a different group of people I would hope
It for sure makes it easier to be non-specific. I was up for the challenge though.
We’ve already extensively discussed it in the replies of your proposal, and I don’t mind you sharing the link here to promote it, but may I point out the following:
#2 of your proposal has been completely refuted with the data. Therefore I can’t take your proposal serious. It allocates disproportionately much to DCA, Limit, VA and Ape while allocating waaaaaaaay to little to Regular Swap and Perps. Here is why:
Swap volume = 344 Billion (47 times more than DCA & Limit combined)
Nobody who honestly looks at above data would conclude that Limit Order & DCA (7.4 Billion / 2.1% of swap / 47X less) should get anything near the allocation of Swap volume (344B volume).
If the team would do it according to your proposal, swap & limit order users would unfairly get 47 times more allocation as regular traders / swap users!
The only fair approach here is to treat all volume (swap / DCA / limit) equal, and give a volume multiplier for special / new features (for example 1.5X or 2X multiplier.
Limit order volume 1.8 Billion
.
DCA volume 5.7 Billion
.
Swap volume 344.0 Billion
Swap volume = 344 Billion (47 times more than DCA & Limit combined)
In summary: Limit & DCA which have 47X less volume / only 2.1% compared to swap volume (7.4B volume compared to 344B).
These features clearly don’t deserve a 47X bigger allocation than swap volume. 96% of Jupiter users does not use the swap or DCA, and there is no clear additional benefit for Jupiter for them to do so.
The only fair approach here is to treat all volume (swap / DCA / limit) equal, and give a volume multiplier for special / new features (for example 1.5X or 2X multiplier.
AND
DCA, VA, LO and APE only represent around 1.3% of all Jupiter users (200,000 out of 15,000,000). The proposal therefore neglects 98.7% of regular traders.
The DCA and Limit orders are too nice specific to receive an equal allocation of 140M JUP relative to Swap volume which most people use. Only 1.3% of users is using the DCA or Limit order function, leaving out 98.7% of Jupiter users.
On Solana when people want to buy or sell a memecoin, they’ll just swap SOL for that coin or the coin back to SOL. DCA and Limit is a niche trading functions. There’s no specific reason to push or promote it that much. Most people don’t use it.
These ~ 200,000 traders only represent 1.3% or 1 / 77th of all 15.5 Million users. The other 98.7% of users is neglected in the proposal. Putting so much focus on DCA and Limit puts too much JUP in the hands of a 189,249 - 211,049 traders, disadvantaging regular swap users.
I understand. While I also thought if people who received Jupuary 1 should be rewarded similarly to those who did not receive anything yet, we could also think that people who received something on jupuary 1 and are still holding and staking, have become loyal supporters for the project. I personally think we should not start excluding them from jupuary 2 but our opinions may differ and my opinion is not any better than yours. 
That’s exactly how it works in my proposal. You can see an example here.
The total votes is what the allocation is based on in my latest proposal.
I agrée, they should get a smaller portion they are already getting a ton of staking rewards sorry
Have you read Jupiter Airdrop Round 2 (2025): Analysis, Discussion & Proposal for Distribution ? This might help for context because this has all been discussed already and I’m looking if we can reach any further than the previous discussion.
Yes but you are including voting power. Not decentralised. Think about it.
IMO it’s pretty clear:
Any activity before November 2023 doesn’t matter for Jupuary round 2.
Like you said, if you got a good airdrop in round 1 and are now staking it, you’re might also be doing well in round 2 with an additional 25% JUP linearly (in my proposal), not including 20% - 45% ASR.
