I think staking JUP and setting a minimum trading volume should be necessary to receive the airdrop. There is no need to reward this. But in order to encourage users to pledge, we can set thresholds in quantity and time, screen out real users through long-term staking conditions, and give rewards.
For those who have pledged a certain number of JUPs, we should add the weight of the staking time and slowly release the rewards in the subsequent rounds of airdrops, and the rewards will be more as they go later, instead of a fixed ratio each time.
I think Jupiter planetary call NFT holder should be available for the airdrop. And put into the list of Community contributors. Cuz those person who always support the Jupiter planetary call live every week for 32# week yet. by the way,they are also the JUP staker. Maybe one NFT for 10-50JUP.Even much better then send them all to the whole discord member(156,198),cuz still have huge robot discord ID inside of the jupiter discord community.
I think 350 million is quite a lot towards stakers after getting a 30% + airdrop already per year. Also giving people who voted the entire year but with low stakes under 10 jup is going to disappoint a very big group of real participants. There is a difference between these type of voters compared to someone who tried the dex once and swapped $100. The differences in commitment is vastly different.
There will always be very different opinions. Actually @JUPWhale had like 50M for stakers and the community asked for a bit more because voters are a big part of the DAO/jupiverse. Using vote cast as the main way to do the airdrop is asking for all the farmers to get most of the airdrop. Would make no sense
Sybil management should negate that. With half the stakers being small but most not being farmers it is important to give them a bigger portion I believe or you will have a lot of negativity is all I am saying
Sybil algo wont catch all wallets with 20 JUP staked because there are people with wallets just for voting or even multiple wallets because they want to vote in two different options in the same vote. If the wallets dont have on-chain connection, there a few more ways to sybil those wallets, but you need to be really sure that they are a cluster or you canāt do nothing.
And suggesting to not at least have tiers on staking power like it was suggested to volume, makes no sense
Itās also important to highlight that a high quorum for passing a DAO proposal means a large percentage of members must participate for a proposal to be approved. This can slow down decision-making and make it harder to pass proposals, potentially leading to operational delays. High quorum requirements help ensure broad consensus but can also lead to stagnation if members are inactive or if itās difficult to mobilise enough votes. Hence the reason I suppose for that fine balance of 30% as majority agreed.
Getting the same % based on total votingpower used in a linear fashion is the only fair way. Would be nice to be able to get the numbers of votes into the equations also but that makes it harder. Getting JUP into stable hands that wonāt jeet as fast as the drop lands in the account is also a important factor and the voters are probability the best people for this.
You are right it could be difficult to catch every farmer but that should not be a reason not to include some of the most dedicated people in the Jup ecosystem stakers all stakers. I think it needs to be large enough and time locked
Prposal is great! but i am in support of splitting the staked users from whales to small sized stakers to reward them a bit decently as each cat is equally importatnt and it will increase there skin in the gameā¦ maybe we create a criteria of 500 votes , 5000 votes, 50000 votes. this will act as a tiered approach and reward small users as well. whales can take a cut not saying to entirely cutting their allocation but a balanced approach towards small sized farmers.
also in support of 1000$ volume filter. i dont understand why are people panicking over it? it is necessary to filter out wastes. in staking also we could add 10 jup as minimum filtering criteriaā¦
10 jup and 1000$ minimum volume would be ideal to consider user a good user and to reward them substantially.
I donāt believe Iām missing any points, but itās okay if we donāt agree entirely on your suggestions. Also, donāt you think there should be criteria for consistency and frequency of engagement with the exchanger? Not just volume, but also factors like the number of trades and longest streak.
Also, you need to consider how many JUPs will be invested in DAO for staking and voting after Jupuary, rather than selling, so I suggest that the share of DAO should be increased to 30%-50% to be reasonable. You must know that there are currently 440M JUP is all pledged by DAO users
Another thing I donāt know if you have noticed is that according to your settings, the difference in coins distributed between SWAPās 1000W and 1000 transaction volume is nearly 100 times. However, the maximum pledger of DAO and the pledger of 50 JUP will ultimately The distributed coins differ by 10,000 times. Do you think this allocation is reasonable? Decentralized?
Strongly agree, it shouldnāt need to be repeated but we already have the ASR system that rewards stakers and does so linearly. Making the project more centralized and giving a giant lump sum to the top 50-100 whale stakers at the expense of everyone else has absolutely no value whatsoever in regards to Jupuary.
Iām sure next weekās fun vote will be a simple āYESā or āNOā on JUPUARY 2025. Once thatās settled, then itās on to the big oneācanāt wait! The excitement is definitely building. My advice: try to manage expectations to avoid disappointment if things donāt go exactly as imagined. Think of this as a gift either way, and be grateful for whatever comes. Trust that the team will ensure it aligns closely with the PPP ethos!