Jupuary Round 2: Conflict of Interest Among JUP Stakers

[JUPWhale]

Wow thank you!

@TabiZzFR

The allocation of 700M JUP across both stakers and the wider community (250M JUP for feature engagement/community allocations and 450M for volume-based rewards) is a smart approach that incentivizes diverse participation.

Yes, only thanks to all the community feedback we were able to come to this!

@TabiZzFR

Thank you for raising these critical points on JUP token distribution and DAO governance. I fully agree that the concentration of voting power among top JUP stakers creates a fundamental conflict of interest, particularly when high-stakes decisions, like airdrop allocations, stand to financially benefit these powerful stakeholders over the broader Jupiter community.

Yes I hope the team already specifies a lot of the Jupuary proposal before it comes to a DAO vote. This will probably ensure a limited influence with conflicted interest.

@TabiZzFR

In conclusion, your proposal ensures that all voices within the Jupiter community, big and small, are heard and valued.

Yes we need a balanced community-refined distribution proposal that is inclusive and comprehensive - providing decentralisation and JUP distribution.

@TabiZzFR

By presenting a single, unified proposal that represents the entire ecosystem, the DAO can move forward with decisions that are inclusive, balanced, and aligned with Jupiter’s mission.

Let’s indeed hope the team will take the proposal to heart, and use the community discussions and conclusions to draft their final proposal.