So you want to leave your proposal unbalanced, unfair and not at all in line with the trading volumes and values the categories contribute to Jupiter. But why?
You say you’re open to changes and yet haven’t made any changes based on my feedback. How is that? After many thousands of words of valuable and meaningful feedback you received with facts and data to back it up? No time? No energy? Or you don’t care?
At first I just thought it was ignorance but not it appears malicious. Why? Because the trading activity criteria you’re proposing would only benefit just 2.5% of Jupiter users who fall within your criteria, and leave 97.5% with little.
For example Swap have 191X the volume and 115X the amount of users compared to Limit orders.
And you are saying to allocate 70M to 138,685 users doing 1.7 Billion in Limit orders, but just 140M to 15,940,921 users doing 340 Billion in swaps?
Why just 2X the allocation for 191X the volume and 115X the amount of users?
Limit volume = 1.7 Billion (191X times less than swap / 0.5% of swap volume (340 Billion)
In which world does someone get a 95.5 times higher allocation, for putting a limit on their trade compared to a regular trade?
Having read all of my feedback you know it’s not right what you’re proposing, but you still leave it up confusing people with strange allocations. If you on the other hand want to have a reasonable contribution, than you might consider the following points to improve your proposal to become a viable alternative:
Why is $100,000+ volume the top tier while there are over 200,000 users in higher tiers? Why is someone with $100K volume rewarded equally to someone with $10M or $100M in volume?
The team themselves even included the $100K - $1M and the $1M+ tiers in the last round. Now the volume increased 10X it only makes sense to add another $10M+ tier, but instead you remove two tiers? Why? That doesn’t make any sense looking at the data. Do you know better than the team?
It makes me think you did a lot of DCA and Limit farming within the volume tiers you provided, otherwise I can’t think of any reason to propose something so irrational and far from the data. If you agree it doesn’t make sense, why didn’t you make any edits to your proposal after receiving so much thorough feedback?
And why in your proposal is there no $1K - $10K tier for regular trading volume, while your DCA and Limit proposes a 47X disproportionate amount and includes the $1K - $10K tier? Is there any reason whatsoever to exclude 1,419,121 users? We already know that deduplication and anti-Sybil is not the reason, because it can be done in many more effective ways without excluding over a million legitimate users.
Why would you only allocate 20% of the airdrop to trading volume from swaps which represent 95%+ of the users and 75% of the volume and activity on Jupiter? That doesn’t make any sense. And especially considering that you arbitrarily leave out over 1 Million legitimate users (1,419,121 users) $1,000.00 - $10,000.00 in volume. Alternatively you can just apply deduplication and anti-Sybil to filter out the airdrop farmers, to be left with all the legitimate users.
I rest my case. May the best elements of the proposals be implemented.
Soji confirmed that the next vote will be Jupuary in 1 - 2,5 weeks
The team (at least 7 people) are all working on Jupuary together
‘‘there’s a lot of wonderful proposals about Jupuary on Jupresear.ch, which we didn’t ask for. Lot’s of hard work went into those proposals’’
‘‘I’m reading every single proposal on Jupresearch to try to shape how we think of things’’
‘‘Meow has some thoughts as well, and he will be unveiling everything starting on Friday at the JUP Really, and then we’ll be following up with the DAO proposal…’’
_
So like we have been saying all along, the team reads these proposals and they are well informed. We trust the team to reach a balance set of criteria that will satisfy the majority in the eco-system. It’s good that many have contributed their views and think @JUPWhale and many others have captured everyone’s attention for the last week+ with several proposals and reviews. It’s been an exciting topic!
Friend I think I was very clear. Am saying to exclude voting power all together. Otherwise it is no different than the yearly airdrop and does nothing for decentralised voting. I hope you understand what I am trying to say
Sorry but how can I friend. Dilution of Jup is not the same as funnelling a large airdrop towards those who already own a lot of staked Jup. About half the stakers have less than 1000 jup staked but like all voters may or may not have voted a lot. Many of those under 1000 jup stakers are legit and voted on proposals the entire year. Those with over 1000 Jup staked are already getting a separate airdrop yearly and if you include a smaller portion of an airdrop towards the bigger whales fine. But don’t forget the smaller voters who I believe are mostly newer users. The airdrop I am suggesting is to also increase those wallets that are staking low amounts but participate a lot. I also think it should be auto staked. This means more voters now have a bigger amount of voting power. Helps towards decentralised decision making.
As we have discussed here the past 2 weeks, if we introduce a tiered approach, it would also reward people who simply have split their JUP into several wallets to vote. If we then start deduplicating them as sybils, lots of legit voters with several wallets would lose a lot because they made the decision of splitting their JUP. This would not be fair either.
I personally (any most others here) think the linear approach for DAO voters is the fairest one and also prevents gaming the system completely.
Diluting the voting power from current voters means the power will be spread among more people, which is the same as decentralising. On top of this, anyone is free to stake their JUP and further decentralise the DAO. It is open for everyone at all time. I recommend anyone who is not staking and voting to consider participating.
“Decentralization or decentralisation is the process by which the activities of an organization, particularly those related to planning and decision-making, are distributed or delegated away from a central, authoritative location or group and given to smaller factions within it.”
It’s a nice very left oriented idea but crypto is mainly capitalistic. There are no 100 staked jup free lunches. If you want more JUP out of the system you need to take more risk. Risk vs reward.
Sure nice talking with you about it. Personally am not worried as I started using Jup back in last November. Pretty much tried out most things. I will of course stake any airdrop I get as I believe 10 easy this cycle and 150 next one. Who knows. Hope some billionaire doesn’t drop like a 100 million to staking one day. Means all our votes would mean bout. Price sure would go up. Lastly multi wallets is definitely really gaming the system and am sure most will be excluded. But let’s face it every single staker here is an airdrop farmer too no? Everyone is trying to get a nice airdrop with their ideas and opinions:) guess that’s normal.
Left right upside down back to front
Dex means decentralised exchange. Capitalism is all good by me. But biased voting on tokenomics proposals that uses a tool of voting power that determines the outcome may not be such a good idea after all. Cracks me up that.
I think your view on this is flawed, your values are aligned with volume rather than contribution.
Person A does 1 swap of 100 sol inot USDC and prints 15k volume
Person B hasn’t the funds to do anything onchain but gets into the community, they participate in the discord, the learn about JUP & its values and the decide to contribute further. They make videos, education material, they participate in debate, they shape the outcome of the protocol in a more meaningful way than a simple swapper.
Person B is more aligned with JUP than the swapper, the deserve a significant allocation for further governance votes.
Yes i think you need to increase the community allocation as there are far more worthy contributors than swappers that deserve more of an allocation as we know that those individuals will meaningfully shape the future of the protocol and we wants those people to have more say in governance matters.
Your fixation on data will hurt the active contributors who have actually got JUP into this position, data does not always tell the full story & JUP has the biggest & strongest community in the entire crypto sphere and not properly rewarding those contributors would be wrong. 50m is not enough, it should be closer to 20% imo
First of all, please think about why MEOW changed the 60 million votes to 120 million, and the final result is 30% to pass the proposal. Thirdly, do we need giant whales or more users? If according to your proposal, The distribution of DAO will only allow the whales to have more JUPs and become more centralized. Third, there are two users. One user participated in the voting from March to October and voted more than 10 times, but he only pledged 50 JUP. Another user only staked 1,000 JUP in October and only voted once. For these two situations, what do you think is a more reasonable distribution?
As the amount of voters and amount of JUP used for voting is increasing, we also have to increase the quorum. Now it’s tied to 30% so it stays fixed in relation to amount of JUP used for voting and therefore reduces the risk of centralised group of voters having too much influence in regards of if a proposal passes or not.
Look friend, morally and logically speaking I might agree with you. But there is something else we need to consider, and that’s the politics.
A 110M allocation / 25% bonus is a lot for just ~ 300,000 decent sized stakers (not counting below 50 JUP stakers), but it’s not disproportional compared to the other users and allocations.
It’s a fair reward considering the future of Jupuary depends on the DAO. We have better chances of having the Jupuary vote passed with a reasonable allocation for the DAO.
Yes but why not include a fair distribution to all stakers too after Sybil check. There was a reason why you only needed 10 jup to vote. To try the voting out to participate in voting for new users. I think all stakers minus fake accounts are probably the most dedicated people. Excluding half of them in any meaningful airdrop will upset a lot of new users.
Also here is probably the reality. On the one hand you have people who staked a lot but because of this they could not rack up volume. But they are getting a continuous airdrop already and probably had the good sense to get the first airdrop. On the other you have users who used the exchange a lot thereby creating a lot of volume but may have very low capital staked but are still dedicated voters. Then there are non users as you mentioned yourself that may be drawn in by giving an airdrop as well. All are equally important. But most of Jupuary in my view should be given to the middle group as you will decentralise voting power further and put Jup into the hands of people who are new since first airdrop. Especially as high amount stakers are rewarded yearly using Jupuary unclaimed tokens. This number is like 30% correct. Not saying they should get nothing in Jupuary but I believe it’s in their interest as well to get new users. Sure would be nice to get another big airdrop for whales but I believe the last one was In July right. Also I believe one criteria should be excluded from voting and that is airdrop allocations. For obvious reasons.
Here is a quick proposal of what it could look like.
10% to all voters based on voting power times votes cast.
55% to all voters based on just votes cast. Minimum volume of perhaps 10k or not. Helps exclude Sybil. The 55% allocation also includes those that only used the dex and did not vote but also based on volume starting at 100$.
Your proposal would be great for the dude who created those 19,000 wallets with 0,1 JUP in them and staked and voted JUP, but most here do not have the intention to play right into the hands of airdrop farmers.
I’m sorry mate but clearly my proposals has a bit more work put into them and would likely carry more weight with a broader audience due to extensive.
There’s no way the team is going to give the same airdrop to a 0,1 JUP staker, a 1 JUP staker, a 10 JUP staker, a 100 JUP staker, a 1000 JUP staker, a 10,000 staker, a 100,000 JUP staker, a 1,000,000 JUP staker and a 10,000,000 JUP staker.
In my proposal they will all get an equal amount relative to the total votes they cast, which is approximately 34.3%.
3.43 JUP for a staker with 10 JUP who cast 10 votes = 100 votes.
34.3 JUP for a staker with 100 JUP who cast 10 votes = 1,000 votes.
343 JUP for a staker with 1000 JUP who cast 10 votes = 10,000 votes.
3,430 JUP for a staker with 10,000 JUP who cast 10 votes = 100,000 votes.
34,300 JUP for a staker with 100,000 JUP who cast 10 votes = 1,000,000 votes. etc. etc.
I’m not going to change this based on your feedback because it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
I think we all know that multi wallets will be excluded. There is no way the team will give whales another large airdrop. Or this would come across as a cex and not a dex. Plus I read it’s supposed to benefit new users. I think you guys are an eco chamber with one proposal controlled by your combined large voting power. Give the majority of the airdrop to whales. Not the spirit of decentralisation.
That is not true. My proposal is very clear about this.
It has a fair and balanced community distribution to 2,3 Million users. Over 90% of these are new users. The more engaged users will be contributed the most, based on their impact and contribution in terms of eg. trading volumes and staking amount.
100% of the allocation is towards the community of Jupiter users. Regular traders, leverage traders, liquidity providers, and people using different features and tokens of the Jupiter ecosystem as well as JUP holders and stakers. Everyone is covered.
