Thanks for your feedback! Let’s see if the proposal of the team is similar or draws from all this research, data and community discussion 
1 Like
I have read and replied to every single one of your comments with actual arguments, data and information - and I will continue to reply to anyone without discrimination, even if the message has no substance.
I urge you to actually read the comments and research them and only reply when you have something constructive to contribute which is backed by facts, data, logic, math and reason.
But since you keep repeating your unfounded opinions without any backing, logic or data on a research forum - which already have been replied to countless of times - I would prefer that you comment under your own topic rather than here.
The vibe of your contributions here is toxic of negativity, and your attitude is critical without reason, backing or proof.
For the rest @MrCricas has said all there needs to be said.
2 Likes
Again, the subject of this topic is not about the IF or WHY about Jupuary because Meow has made these very clear.
The subject of this topic is about how a community focussed and growth focussed Jupuary could be distributed.
You are completely off topic here since you disagree with Meow, the team and the tokenomics on Jupuary.
That’s why you your comments would be better in place under your own topic or another topic where you can discuss the merits of Jupuary in general, the option to cancel Jupuary or to use the funds to ASR.
1 Like
Well, as you aren’t the one deciding here, I think im in my own right to contribute and add my comments whenever I want
I would highly suggest you to read the community rules that you use to ping to others
Appreciate your feedback like always @Miuq!
Yes, but outside of everything numerical, there are more things, like NFTs, communities, roles, etc.
Sure, just stay on topic as per community guidelines or try to actually contribute something helpful and reasonable.
‘‘I have a large stake’’ = self interest and bias, noted.
‘‘I would prefer linear’’ = preference without argument.
‘‘If I should decide’’ = you don’t decide, but you can vote.
Your comment is duly noted.
Im sorry for giving my opinion without your permission @JUPWhale
Next time I will be sure to ask for your approval first
I’m really sorry, that won’t happen again! 
Yes any community contribution like this included in the 50,000,000 allocation, even when not specifically mentioned - it’s part of the ‘‘etc.’’ which the team or the team-appointed comission can decide and distribute 
Have a good day Jazy. I wish you best of luck in your crypto journey.
That’s why these arb bots get very little allocation based on their volume. If they did 500,000,000 in volume they still would get ‘‘only’’ 6,784 JUP based on the $10M+ tier. There’s only a hand full of these ultra-high volume users, so nothing of concern.
Meow wrote about this topic last year:
And
Yes we should know a little more tomorrow after the JUP Really, at 3.30PM UTC.
Fair point, but the volumes for DCA and Limit are insignificant (2.5% compared to the total volume) and the fees collected are also insignificant compared to the total fees / revenue. Jupiter could start charging a 0,1% fee on swaps any time they’d like without losing significant real user volume, bringing in Billions.
1 Like
So that means , if the arb value is deducted , then the total volume that the calculation will be on will be 208B
1 Like
Appreciate the feedback!
1 Like
Actually now I think about it, I was wrong about this point.
There must be a lot of genuine volume included in the $124.2 Billion on the pairs SOL-USDC, USDT-USDC and SOL-USDT I previously called arb volume.
The 24.2B on USDT-USDC is almost certainly arb volume, but the USDC-SOL and SOL-USDC volume must have a lot of non-arb volume as well.
I can think of many good reasons why to trade the SOL-USDC pair, and I think especially traders with larger portfolio’s frequently use it to get in out of the market.
That having said, the team could easily identify arb volume by looking at the handful of top traders for these paids with $500M+ or $1B+ volume and conclude based on the activity which ones are bots.
But they also said that these bots are important for liquidity and it’s not clear they should be excluded from the picture. As long as their airdrop isn’t linear but tiered.
You need to allocate more to the community, take 75m tokens from the swap users and place it within the community allocation as JUP is the sum of all its part (the individuals) they deserve the lions share we would not be here without them
I said that I am open to changes as it was just an idea how the airdrop distribution should roughly look like in my eyes. I doubt the Jup team will take any proposal 1:1 with the way it is written and they will come up with their version of it. Also I said that I am open to some changes in my distribution proposal, but that will definitely not be as additional allocation to the swappers, because of the views I have expressed multiple times. You should accept the fact that it’s impossible for everyone to like your proposal and each has their own vision for the future.
If someone is part of the community without trading on Jupiter, what would they doing here except for farming?
Every allocation in my proposal ends up with the community of Jupiter users: traders, investors, voters, stakers, liquidity providers, contributers etc.
Specific contributors to online community channels have 320 JUP allocation on average, but many of the 156,198 members are passive members who don’t contribute and might not get much or anything from the team.
If someone has a very active community he could also get a much larger % of the 50,000,000 JUP allocation like 1,000 JUP or 3,000 JUP or 10,000 JUP. It all depends on effort and the manual review by the team (or team-appointed commission / jury).