Jupuary Round 2: Conflict of Interest Among JUP Stakers

[JUPWhale]

@Jeanlucbb0

And as a rare instance of a token that didn’t merely reward whales, the token has performed very well even in a bad market and even with huge ASR incentives. The first airdrop was an example of the opposite of what you’re advocating for and performed exceedingly well.

Great point made here!

[JUPWhale]

@miuq

Makes me think you have not even read the proposal introduced by the OP. Please read it carefully and we can then continue to discuss about it.

Here is the balanced community-refined distribution proposal that is inclusive and comprehensive - providing sufficient decentralisation and distribution.

JUP Airdrop Round 2: Addressing Concerns & Proposal for Distribution

Airdrop Distribution Proposal Below you find our JUP Airdrop Distribution Proposal for Jupuary round 2. The proposal has been expanded multiple times to include feedback from community members in the comments. Scroll down for all the data, analysis and discussions. New Jupiter Features & Community Allocations 250M JUP: DAO / JUP Stakers: 70M JUP / 439,582,771 Staked JUP = 159 JUP per 1,000 Staked JUP 0.159 JUP per 1 staked JUP / 15.9% bonus on top of staked JUP. If possible using the aver…

[JUPWhale]

@OrangoRosa

Just as an idea, a possibility to tackle the conflict of interest could be to cap the voting power to a certain amount leaving intact the weight of the staked JUP hen it comes to reward distribution

This is an interesting idea and proposal, worth taking notice everyone!

I believe what you’re saying @OrangoRosa is to only cap the voting power when it concerns votes relating to JUP stakers voting about rewards of JUP Stakers?

And to leave the voting power intact for other votes where JUP stakers are not voting about their own rewards - do I understand you correctly?

[JUPWhale]

@Mbolorman

we should trust the team.

100% trusting the team, and I think @meow has a solid understanding and strategy when it comes to Jupuary. I think we’re mainly just speculating and contributing to the debate here as we’re waiting for a final proposal from the team (:

@Mbolorman

They’re more than capable of thinking this through to make it fair for everyone involved.

The team might draw from these debates and refer to them later, as they have made it clear they are listening to the community for their proposals.

@Mbolorman

The debate across the DAO is getting intense, so let’s all take a step back, catch our breath, and remember that—no matter what—this is a gift.

I hope my topic didn’t rub people the wrong way, and I remain positive about the DAO and understand the vital importance of JUP whales and stakers.

Mainly pointing out the conflict of interest here when it comes to JUP stakers voting about rewards for JUP stakers (voting about decisions concerning their own significant interests, hence pointing out a clear conflict of interest).

[BGJ]

Jupiter trading volume since first jupuary is like 18x higher. Thus nobody can’t count with same “gifts” as we got in the first jupuary. The lowest amount back then was 200 JUP. Now it will be something like 10 JUP. Which is good. Nice little gift for smallest fishes. I really believe people who’ll get thos little “gifts” will want to multiple them in the ASR. This is also for higher tiers, because there will be no 100k tier anymore.

To make it good for both sides - for stakers and platform users I suggest something like:

700m tokens total
120m to ASR (from 50M/q to 80M/q to keep rewards juicy with more stakers and more JUP in the game)
80m to stakers (based on proposals voted, voting power, etc. We need to brainstorm more about details)
500m to platform users (need more brainstorming also)

In this case we need to figure out how to give away those 500M tokens in the most fair way.

[OrangoRosa]

In other words, let’s say that you could cap the voting power to 1 million votes for those who have staked over 1 million, but they will be entitled anyway to get rewards according to the actual weight of their staked JUP on total JUP staked.
This system would preserve their rights to rewards, but limit the influence on voting on proposals.
This could have the consequence to encourage whales to split their assets staked into several wallets to circumvent the cap, but first it would require time (30 days to unstake) and second would make more complicated to handle a large number of accounts. It could be made better. Just a matter to brainstorm a bit

[JUPWhale]

This has been analysed and discussed in depth in the below balanced community-refined distribution proposal that is inclusive and comprehensive - providing sufficient decentralisation and distribution of JUP.

JUP Airdrop Round 2: Addressing Concerns & Proposal for Distribution

Disclaimer The author of this post is not part of the Jupiter team in any way. This is a community proposal and discussion, and the criteria below are not final. The final criteria will come from the team and still have to be voted on by the DAO. Airdrop Distribution Proposal Below you find our JUP Airdrop Distribution Proposal for Jupuary round 2. The proposal has been expanded multiple times to include feedback from community members in the comments. Scroll down for all the data, analys…

[VengefulDemon]

I dont have much money so it doesnt bother me what is gonna happen in terms of whales or else but i can easily say that instead of rewarding swap farmers i would be more glad to see rewarded stakers especially long term holders and more vote participants. In one place someone locks their assets , join discussion, participating in vote and keep the assets in there for months. In other place hundereds of thousands people just visit jupiter swap especially the last months of the year and starts their farm and leave. As i said before dao contribution , community contribution , products like perps or other things (where creativity, effort , time and risks are bigger) are better be seen as way way important than swappers. I dont know to where the majority of jupuary will be distributed but i know where i don’t want to see = swap volume farmers

[Mbolorman]

100% agree @JUPWhale I did have a follow-up message to the one you have responded to that put a lot of things you replied to in context. I refer to my follow up message below for context to the one you responded to.

@Mbolorman

I believe they’re following these debates and feedback closely, as they’ve mentioned several times, and they often refer to them when making decisions. So, in that context, I think we should trust them. The reality is that we’ll never reach a scenario where everyone is completely happy. Tomorrow, I might be the one saying I’m disappointed that I wasn’t rewarded enough—or at all—but I understand that it’s impossible to please everyone.

@JUPWhale

I hope my topic didn’t rub people the wrong way, and I remain positive about the DAO and understand the vital importance of JUP whales and stakers.

I actually believe the opposite: your topic has sparked a positive debate that has made a valuable contribution to this January discussion. I want to emphasise again that you’ve presented your case eloquently and backed it with solid data. My main point, as I mentioned in my earlier message, is that the team is surely paying attention to these discussions and using them to inform their decisions. We should trust them to arrive at a balanced outcome that aligns with the project’s vision and objectives.

[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.

As you noted, rewarding active JUP stakers is essential because they reinforce the DAO’s value and stability. However, these incentives must not come at the cost of broader community engagement and equity. When a small group controls a disproportionate percentage of votes, the DAO’s decisions risk becoming misaligned with the platform’s broader user base, potentially alienating those who contribute in other meaningful ways (e.g., trading volume, feature engagement).

Your comprehensive proposal for Jupuary round 2 is a well-considered solution to address these imbalances, ensuring inclusivity while respecting the role of JUP stakers. 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. It balances JUP stakers’ rewards with a commitment to user engagement and fairness, which is vital to the longevity and growth of the Jupiter platform.

To strengthen your point further, it might be beneficial to highlight examples from other DAOs that have implemented tiered or weighted voting models. Many have found success in reducing the disproportionate influence of “whales,” thereby achieving a more decentralized and fair governance structure. Including such a reference could reinforce the rationale for exploring similar structures within the Jupiter DAO, even if only for high-stakes votes.

In conclusion, your proposal ensures that all voices within the Jupiter community, big and small, are heard and valued. 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. Thank you for your leadership and commitment to creating a fairer Jupiter ecosystem for all.

[JUPWhale]

Thank you for your comments and it makes sense.

Our proposal does not award swap farmers. Swap users does not equal swap farmers. Farming and gaming the system can happen on every one of the products and categories, and has to be filter out as much as possible.

Our proposal filters out ~ 11.3 Million (11,361,557) low quality spam users / bots and airdrop farmers.

Further deduplication and anti-Sybil measures can filter out the rest.

@JUPWhale

@JUPWhale

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 (11,361,557) low quality spam users / bots and airdrop farmers with less than $100 in total trading volume.

Our proposal is a balanced community-refined distribution proposal that is inclusive and comprehensive - providing sufficient decentralisation and distribution.

It includes the broad base of Jupiter users and stakeholders: DAO / JUP Stakers, Community contributors, New Feature Users, Perpetual Traders, JLP holders, $10M+ tier, $1M - $10M tier, $100K - $1M tier, $10K - $100K tier, $1K - $10K tier and $100+ users.

JUP Airdrop Round 2: Addressing Concerns & Proposal for Distribution

Disclaimer The author of this post is not part of the Jupiter team in any way. This is a community proposal and discussion, and the criteria below are not final. The final criteria will come from the team and still have to be voted on by the DAO. Airdrop Distribution Proposal Below you find our JUP Airdrop Distribution Proposal for Jupuary round 2. The proposal has been expanded multiple times to include feedback from community members in the comments. Scroll down for all the data, analys…

[JUPWhale]

@Mbolorman

your topic has sparked a positive debate that has made a valuable contribution to this January discussion. I want to emphasise again that you’ve presented your case eloquently and backed it with solid data.

Thank you!

@Mbolorman

My main point, as I mentioned in my earlier message, is that the team is surely paying attention to these discussions and using them to inform their decisions. We should trust them to arrive at a balanced outcome that aligns with the project’s vision and objectives.

Yes agreed!

[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.

[Delyo]

It is absurd to compare tradfi yield vs crypto yield.

Tradfi yield is much less risky so is the yield, so with crypto it is deserved.
Do you honestly think that 65% yield on stakers is that good which will bring 50% coins in circulation? We’ve had multiple 10s of % swings in price for that period of time only. It’s impossible to talk about 5,10 or 20+ year investment horizon in crypto because let’s be real - we can’t even be sure that Solana will be the leading L1 as it is today (by activity and therefore JUP as a project won’t perform as well as it is now)

[JUPWhale]

JupSOL yields less than 10% and people are complaining about the 64.4% yield on JUP? It’s absurd.

The effect of 50% inflation is completely overstated:

@JUPWhale

It’s not about how many tokens are distributed, but about how such distribution theoretically could effect the staker by effecting the price of JUP.

The injection of 50% new tokens could cause at the most 33% price decrease (assuming everyone sells their JUP, which is statistically impossible).

A 1% - 20% sell rate is much more realistic, only causing a few percent price decrease due to ‘inflation’. A few 10’s of million JUP being sold from the airdrop can easily be absorbed by the market.

With a FDV of $10 Billion and already #56 on CMC within one year, I think JUP is doing great and there is no need to fear a 33% downturn in the price from a so-called 50% ‘‘inflation’’. Many airdrop beneficiaries won’t sell their JUP.

Even if there would be a 33% price downturn, the 48.5% from ASR + 15.9% from Jupuary totalling 64.4% would more than cover that.

[BGJ]

yeah, saw it. Good work. But this proposal don’t count with diluting ASR rewards with wave of new JUP.

[WalterZan]

you are a great worker brother

[JUPWhale]

@Jeanlucbb0

Jupuary and airdrops broadly are a community building exercise and marketing, look at the state of projects such as Orbiter which is now faking bridge volume or Scroll which lost half of its TVL in a week, it makes sense to reward power USERS, not simply linearly reward power stakers. If you can’t do that, you will ultimately lose those users.

This is one of the greatest comments!

[Shrekt]

We could ask OHM and Tia stakers how they feel about the ultra high yield?

[JUPWhale]

Good luck in the Jupiter community, you may need it when you’re comparing JUP to a failed token OHM!