Jupuary #2 criteria disucssion

After reading the post below, I feel the need to throw in my cap about the discussion regarding distribution of jupuary #2

JUP Airdrop Round 2: Addressing Concerns & Proposal for Distribution - Jupiter DAO / $JUP - Jupiter Research

This was a great read and well articulated but does not feel Jupuary alligned imo, the ecosystem is not defined by its swap volume and the entire distribution allocation should not be given to swap users based on volume.

Over the past year JUP has evolved and introduced a lot of amazing feature, importantly the DAO and govenance voting. This should be the focus of JUPUARY 2, rewarding those participants who are actively trying to improve the ecosystem and not just users that contribute volume.

Further more the introduction of limits, dca & perps should also be considerations in the critiera for JUPUARY #2.

Distributing 700m tokens to 15.2m wallets would lead to a significant amount of wallets not claiming JUP & those tokens going back into the community pool. The distribution net is too wide, and while I agree this would be good for decentralisation, we need to narrow the criteria down to benefit those users who have been exploring the JUP ecosystem since the last airdrop.

Jupuary#1 was for swap users

Jupuary#2 needs to be for users who have participated in

  • Governance: Voting/staking JUP
  • Jup features, limits/perps/DCA/Ape/VA
  • Community, educators/discord users/twitter engagers/forum users

These 3 pillars are far more important than your basic swap users who can easily manipulated volume, and while they are important to the protocol they play little part in shaping the future of the ecosystem which needs to be the focus of Jupuary#2 to further incentive active contribution, if we reward swap it will only perpetuate disingenuous volume pushing into Jupuary#3

Thanks for reading, appretiate any feedback

14 Likes

Great write up my friend! You’re not wrong.

I don’t think having jupuary whales are the worst. As long as jup is in the hands of those who BELIEVE in $JUP.

7 Likes

All the three pillar you mentioned are awesome I think swap volume for 365 days is crazy while Jupiter have built alot of amazing new products… The criteria shouldn’t always base around swap, the jupiverse is growing everyday.

6 Likes

Agreed, I think it will be a hard to task to please everyone but we can’t have the same distribution model as Jup#1, some of your suggestions are worth noting

4 Likes

You haven’t discredited the article you’re responding to; instead, you’ve presented an alternative approach for distributing the next Jupuary, and you’ve provided sound reasons for it. Having a counter view without discrediting another is healthy for such debates.

I completely agree with your rationale for not using the same criteria as the last Jupuary. For me, this is especially relevant because the goals of the first Jupuary were achieved remarkably well, both before and after its launch. Given how much the ecosystem has developed since then, it’s essential to prioritise new criteria that reward those who missed out on the initial Jupuary and those who have actively contributed to the ecosystem’s growth.

4 Likes

it’s all about giving it to the believers :rocket:

3 Likes

Same as what carls proposal was all about… community should be prioritized, yes because even jup.ag charges 0$ on swaps.

1 Like

@num17 thank you again for your feedback on my article. Based on your feedback, and the feedback of several other community members, I have made several additions and changes to my initial analysis and proposal. These are:

  • An extra allocation for users who have traded JUP, JLP, JupSOL and/or having used new Jupiter features like DCA, Perps, DAO Staking/Voting

    • A total of 70M JUP would be allocated to these New Feature Users
  • Applying a minimum volume requirement of $100, resulting in a 74.4% decrease to ~ 3.9M users (source ) instead of 15.25M total wallets

    • This effectively weeds out around ~ 11.3 Million low quality spam users / bots and airdrop farmers with less than $100 in total trading volume.
  • Adding a new $10M+ volume tier, instead of only using a $1M+ tier

    • It would be logical to add a new 10X higher tier since the total trading volume has also increased 9X. Users making $10M+ in trading volume would be rewarded with 9,045 JUP per user

You find the complete additions below.
.


Addition on 27. Oct 2024 at 6PM EST

There have been several community members who commented suggesting an allocation, multiplier or bonus for users who have traded JUP, JLP, JupSOL and/or having used new Jupiter features like DCA, Perps, DAO Staking/Voting.

Assuming that it’s feasible and possible for the team to retrieve this data, I believe it would be beneficial to introduce a JUP bonus or allocation for users who traded JUP, JLP, JupSOL and/or having used new Jupiter features like DCA, Perps, DAO Staking/Voting. It’s a good idea which seems broadly supported by the community.

The tokens would have to come from somewhere though. The tokens could come from the 140M general non-tiered allocation. By reducing the general allocation by 50%, which is 70M, this amount could be used for rewarding users with bonus allocations if they traded JUP, JLP and/or having used DCA, Perps, Staking/Voting.

An added bonus allocation for New Feature Users could look like this:

  • New Feature Users: 70M JUP: / est. ~ 1,000,000 users = ~ 70 JUP per user

New Feature Users are any user who traded JUP, JLP, JupSOL and/or who used new Jupiter features like DCA, Perps, DAO Staking/Voting. The exact amount of ‘New Feature Users’ is unknown, but considering at least 800,000 JUP holders and over 600,000 JUP DAO stakers / voters, we estimate it to be at least 1 Million users.
.

Applying a $100+ volume-based spam filter

The ‘generic’ allocation per general user wouldn’t be affected much by a 70M JUP deduction, as long as a minimum volume requirement of $100 is implemented. In fact, the allocation per general user with $100+ volume would be even higher. The below filtering out of 11.3 Million low quality spam users / bots explains how.

Several community members have noted the importance of implementing measures against low quality spam users / bots and airdrop farmers. Applying a minimum volume requirement of $100 would make ~ 3.9M users (source ) instead of 15.25M wallets. This effectively weeds out around ~ 11.3 Million low quality spam users / bots and airdrop farmers with less than $100 in total trading volume.

In this adjusted proposal only a core user base of ~ 3.9 Million Jupiter users (source ) would receive an allocation, instead of the earlier mentioned total wallet count of ~ 15.25 Million. It would increase the allocation to legitimate users from 9 JUP to 18 JUP per user, despite using only 70M JUP instead of 140M JUP as the ‘all users’ allocation.

So instead of …

  • All users: 140M JUP / 15,247,000 users = 9 JUP per user

… it would be:

  • All $100+ users: 70M JUP / 3,885,443 users = 18 JUP per user

|

Addition on 28. Oct 2024 at 6AM EST

Based on the feedback from community members in the comments, it might also be a good idea to add a new $10M+ volume tier, instead of only using a $1M+ tier. It would be logical to add a new 10X higher tier since the total trading volume has also increased 9X.

Adding a new $10M tier would effectively mean splitting up the 140M JUP airdrop allocation for highest tier in two new tiers of $1M+ and $10M+ volume power users, with a 100M JUP and 40M JUP allocation respectively.

For example 40M JUP would be allocated to the top 4,422 users (source) who traded over $10 Million in trading volume. The remaining 100M JUP would be going to the 31,920 users (source) who traded between $1M and $10M in volume.
This would result in the following airdrop allocations for power users:

  • $10M+ volume tier: 40M JUP / 4,422 users = 9,045 JUP per user
  • $1M - $10M volume tier: 100M JUP / 31,920 users = 3,133 JUP per user

.


Final Airdrop Distribution Proposal

The new JUP Airdrop Distribution Proposal for round 2, including the implemented feedback from community members in the comments, would look like this:

  • $10M+ tier: 40M JUP / 4,422 users = 9,045 JUP per user
  • $1M - $10M tier: 100M JUP / 31,920 users = 3,133 JUP per user
  • $100K - $1M tier: 140M JUP / 182,332 users = 767 JUP per user
  • $10K - $100K tier: 105M JUP / 664,448 users = 158 JUP per user
  • $1K - $10K tier: 105M JUP / 1,419,121 users = 74 JUP per user
  • All $100+ users¹: 70M JUP / 3,885,443 users = 18 JUP per user
  • Community contributors: 70M JUP = distributed at teams discretion
  • New Feature Users²: 70M JUP: / est. 1,000,000 users³ = ~ 70 JUP per user

Total: 40M + 100M + 140M + 105M + 105M + 70M + 70M + 70M = 700M JUP ⁴.
.

¹ $100 minimum volume requirement used to reduce the general user base from ~ 15.25 Million wallets to ~ 3.9 Million users. This effectively weeds out around ~ 11.3 Million low quality spam users / bots and airdrop farmers.

² Any user who traded JUP, JLP, JupSOL and/or who used new Jupiter features like DCA, Perps, DAO Staking/Voting.

³ The exact amount of ‘New Feature Users’ is unknown, but considering at least 800,000 JUP holders and over 600,000 JUP DAO stakers / voters, we estimate it to be at least 1 Million users.

The total airdrop allocation would have been 1 Billion instead of 700 Million if there wouldn’t have been the highly disputed passed vote for a 30% JUP token supply burn. The burn significantly reduces the community distribution by 300 Million JUP.

1 Like

Jupuary#2 needs to be for users who have participated in

  • Governance: Voting/staking JUP
  • Jup features, limits/perps/DCA/Ape/VA
  • Community, educators/discord users/twitter engagers/forum users

I really appreciate this, and I support that it requires at least 50% weight!

1 Like

1 Like

Still think the weighting towards swap volume is too high, distribution towards the other pillars described in the post feels more JUP aligned. First airdrop was for volume 2nd should not include this at its core and should only be a minor footnote in the distribution

2 Likes

Swap volume should be eliminated as a whole - it is being gamed beyond belief

2 Likes

Trading cryptocurrency tokens remains the main purpose of Jupiter Aggregator.

The adjusted volume-based distribution based on user tiers remains a fair method to reward the 3.9 Million Jupiter users according to their level of trading activity (volume).

In addition to this I propose an allocation for 1. DAO / JUP Stakers, 2. Community Contributors and 3. New Feature Users (any user who traded JUP, JLP, JupSOL and/or who used new Jupiter features like DCA, Perps, DAO Staking/Voting.)

I have since added other ‘‘Non-Trading Based Community Allocations’’ in my proposal, which you can read below: JUP Airdrop Round 2: Addressing Concerns & Proposal for Distribution - #87 by JUPWhale

2 Likes

It’s not needed to eliminate swap volume as a whole. The team can easily apply deduplication methods and anti-Sybil methods.

In addition, a $100 minimum volume requirement would reduce the general user base from ~ 15.25 Million wallets to ~ 3.9 Million users. This effectively weeds out around ~ 11.3 Million low quality spam users / bots and airdrop farmers. The higher tiers provide even more protection against gaming the system.
.

Trading cryptocurrency tokens remains the main purpose of Jupiter Aggregator.

The adjusted volume-based distribution based on user tiers remains a fair method to reward the 3.9 Million Jupiter users according to their level of trading activity (volume).

In addition to this I propose an allocation for 1. DAO / JUP Stakers, 2. Community Contributors and 3. New Feature Users (any user who traded JUP, JLP, JupSOL and/or who used new Jupiter features like DCA, Perps, DAO Staking/Voting.)

I have since added other ‘‘Non-Trading Based Community Allocations’’ in my proposal, which you can read below: JUP Airdrop Round 2: Addressing Concerns & Proposal for Distribution - #87 by JUPWhale

3 Likes

Can’t agree less
This is just what it should be

2 Likes

friend @fonsiman read this, just what we were talking about yesterday

3 Likes

What do wallets look like for $200/$500? Still think that 60%+ allocation to swap volume makes little sense

1 Like

Disagree in the sense that this is the primary purpose of the platform.

Albeit if we were to change the direction of criteria subtly perps volume ought to be one of the primary categories for distribution in the next drop. New feature, but still core to the broad purpose of the product.

2 Likes

hey, thanks so much for the ping friend. SUPER useful info. I just gave my point of view too

1 Like

I have like 120k volume but think there must be a way to include legitimate users under 100$. Perhaps if they voted or scared or made a limit order. That would be good.

1 Like