This is not another proposal for Jupuary criteria. Those seem like all the rave these days. In my opinion those discussions are pointless for now given that they would still be had after the Jupuary vote(if the community chooses to continue).
I think some of the conversations I’ve seen on the topic recently are distasteful(especially when they include insults/personal attacks). Everywhere you look on socials too you’ll find one of those.
This brings me to the main point of this post, Jupuary was created to unite the community and align them with the team while they both push for the same goals(expanding the Jupiverse). It appears that the original purpose has been perverted by the same community it was meant to benefit. Every interaction I’ve seen on the topic is very PVP, with people arguing for sides that would play in their favour. Greed is normal, and it is natural to look out for self interest, but if it erodes the very principles of a catdet can it really be said that the right people are involved in these conversations? Has J.U.P gathered the “right” people?
We are also getting farmed hard, on every platform there are people whose sudden increase in activity is aimed solely at getting a drop. There are users that have dedicated days and resources to gaming the potential drop as much as possible.
There are also members that have recently joined the community through different means and have powered their way to some level of trust. Would they still be here post-drop?
This is the only reason I’m inclined to vote against Jupuary if it will occur in the same format as the first(one lump drop on a single day). Is there a way to ensure that it is distributed gradually over time to community members that provably embody JUP ethos? Is there a way to prevent “user vs community member” situations? Would staked/locked allocations work? Little immediate claims & higher drops if locked? What would work, in your opinion?
Lastly, As a catdet, do you know your role in all this? Should you devolve into PvP actions? Is it right to make arguments that alienate the user? I don’t expect you to be 100% altruistic, but can you see past self interest?
This is the first real test on how you’d act if you thought there was something to gain. Will you pass?
I used to read the posts/topics regarding the possible renewal of the Jupuary because I can see and know the other cats opinions on it. But lately most of them are PVP to the point using inappropriate words.
Honestly, I’m not totally against it, after reading some cats opinions and arguments I decided to vote yes for it. Why? Because it will end those arguments and fights.
If Jupuary brings more cats in the Jupiverse and most of them hold their gifts that would be amazing. But if the results were not so good then the cats will understand that having more of it will not be necessary and I think most of us will start voting NO for it.
I hope we can go back where we can drop our opinions and arguments without those inappropriate words. I love reading opinions and arguments but not in that kind of way.
I personally don’t see anything wrong with the PVP nature of the topic, the real question is what to do about that and the results any actions one way or the other might take.
The reality is that linear allocation, particularly linear stake based allocation as a major component of the drop rewards a tiny minority, arguable 50-200 people overwhelmingly, and entrenches them further in regards to voting power.
If voters simply vote the entire slice of the pie linearly to voters, then the purpose of a vote in general becomes pointless. Don’t even bother with a vote, just get an email response from the top 50 stakers.
If we value decentralization and treating Jupuary like a community building exercise, you want to avoid chucking peanuts at people and giving a tiny minority of users 99.9% of the drop. This also creates a broader voter base.
Crypto is the industry of networks, and the experiences of 99% of users matters more than the top 5 stakers. You can’t build a project on the basis of a few capital holders, you require users and you require a network of people who value the project.
If all this sounds like cope and you think stakers need 100% ASR yields because of “risk” and users don’t have the same value as stakers, well that’s fine but I will personally boycott the project and recommend others do too.
Look at Scroll as a recent example, linear airdrops that disregard 99.9% of the community result in horrible token performance and a gutted userbase.
All that said, there can and should be a balance when it actually comes to the drop itself. Both Asimsy and JUPWhales proposals were broadly good. A linear drop that focuses on staking as 60% of the allo wouldn’t be for comparison in my opinion.
Bro, I’ve seen these post and discussions a lot lately, and it drives me crazy. IMO, us the catdets play an important role. It is our responsibility to protect the integrity of our Jupiverse and embody the PPP culture to influence the community.
It is the core of our ethos.
Additionally, many new members join after they have heard of Jup from an influencers. It is also our duty to take time, patient, and to properly educate the community to support and grow Jup.
Great breath of fresh air. Like you stated it seems it’s all about me me me. Don’t get me wrong I would love a gift, but we as a community need to do a better job of having a discussion not an argument. We are all here to support and succeed together.
I think you struggle to understand what I wrote then.
You sound like you’re asking for total apathy if what I wrote goes over your head.
This is a potentially billion dollar decision for a multi billion dollar protocol. If you don’t get that and want to sing kumbaya be my guest. Personally I think that’s total bullshit.
Also in reference to your original post, the “user vs community member” distinction is a bad way to think and frame this and tells me you have a bad understanding of this discussion broadly. The goal should be to have users BE community members. You don’t get there with a ASR 2.0 in place of Jupuary.
Inevitably, that means there is a PVP aspect to this. Do you want 50 people to win or 5 hundred thousand to win? That’s the question I was clearly answering above.
After several days of discussion, I have read many posts. Everyone is making relevant statements for their own interests and criticizing the views of the other party.
A more obvious example
Sawp farmers are vigorously showing off the airdrop of a large amount of distribution, while opposing the distribution of Jup to staker because they have obtained ASR
The staker believes that airdrops lead to 50% inflation in circulation, and prices may decrease. If there is not enough airdrop to the staker, they will suffer losses and the DAO will exist in name only.
These two viewpoints are sharply contradictory and indeed have a hint of PVP flavor. I was originally considering the arrival of Airdrop 2, but now I am thinking about whether I should really vote against it.
How to promote the development of JP and balance everyone’s interests requires everyone to think.
Wouldn’t be so suprise because how greedy people are, i agree with that we are being taking advance from farmer and moreover in my point of view, Airdrop should not be in any Web3. People come for free money not for community or tech. Thus they are not helping project at all.
This reply is more suited for a criteria post.
There will be many serious discussions on it if the vote to continue them passes.
You seem to be the one that doesn’t understand my post, I don’t think you made any effort to. You are just blinded by what criteria you intend to push.
I like this. It’s a fresh take for this subject and kinda outside the box. I feel the same regarding the existence of greed and some PvP attitude when it comes to this topic…topic that seems to be pushed more and more on X in this period of time ( not saying that is a bad thing, but surely there are bad actors out there that are pushing and shilling their own interests through posts related to jupuary).
And yes we can’t remove the greed factor entirely…and we shouldn’t try to do that on the first place…its in our human/cat nature :))…but we surely can and we must control it at some level, by educating new comers, being patient with them and share our knowledge about this project…Heck, in fact we need to continuously educate ourselves in meantime, that’s necessary!
I can relate as a new comer because of the 1st Jupuary and not afraid and ashamed to say it. And I’m not even a beneficiary of the first drop. But I stuck around and found a lot more about Jupiter, and the most important thing: the community members that were always nice to me, even when I asked dumb questions, the chads were always answering with kindness and with patience. This is the part of the ethos we must not forget and remove! Be kind and have patience with each other. This is all about Jupiter…without this we shouldn’t even consider and think about jupuaries and stuff. Yea, jupuary is a part of Jupiter and it makes Jupiter awesome but we should not let jupuary be a decisive part of Jupiter evolution.
If you ever saw what top stakers are voting is not for DAO thats for their bag (Personal Gain), agreed everyone here is for a fat bag, what are the odds that users who are pointed out to be selling making a price impact and the stakers which said to be DAO wont book profit if they really get high yield which includes ASR thats casual 100% APY is being requested from 45% which ASR provides, if they really intended for projects benefit it would have chooses to burn the token.
but main motive is to attain more voting power to furthermore manipulate the voting system and keep inclined in their favor, voting requires minimal interactions probably 3-5 proposals in a quarter, that takes few minutes, still not happy with the passive income structure.
APY for ASR seem to be lower than 45% as we are seeing a rising number of staker and voters with jupuary bringing even more JUP to ASR pool. Here is a thread with some data regarding ASR.
