Please Read! I have experience with the reduction of Tokens by means of burning and/or removing them from circulation, Causing a DIRECT DECREASE IN TOTAL MARKET CAP. For Example I have Burend 20% of an original Supply ONLY to realize the TOTAL MCAP DECREASES by the number of "tradable Value or Fiat value locked to each token. Tokens from Original Total Token Supplies of different Tokens Where the Value IMMEDIATLY DECREASES) In simpler terms let us say that Token “X” starts with a 1,000,000 Token Supply, and Market Cap of $1,000,000 ( $1Mill Dollars, Therefore each Token holds a Value of $1.00 or One Dollar.) when I have removed by burning 20% in the past “solscan” updates the total tokens to have 20% less than 1,000,000 or 800,000 after burn event. The Issue I have found was that Solscan & even bireye.so reported the correct number of newly circulating coins, But in fact REMOVED 20% of Said Tokens Market CAP ~ Meaning the 200,000 that were cestroyed or Burnt held at the time each a value of $1… After the burn event All statistics were Changed to a 20% drop in MARKETCAP VALUE So this can Become very confusing but in SIMPLE TERMS the $200,000 Valuation of the Burnt tokens was also removed from the total Token Value.
This comes to mean THAT IF there is not a single JUP sold after the reduction event, each token losses value (INCLUDING JUPS drop in MARKETCAP)
Until more information is available I think going forward with such a proposal could wreak havok on the ECOSYSTEM…
Just my 2 Cents, Let me know what you think. Thank you. J4J
You’re missing the forest for the trees. This burn proposal is not about market cap or token price. The bigger picture is about whether or not the community feels there are an excess of tokens available for the future needs of the team and DAO.
I also don’t see how it would wreak havoc on the ecosystem. That seems way overly dramatic.
I have seen in many of the replies - “community is losing” which i understand as the following: In the basics one would think of the price is X and i will get Y amount of token for which total $ is less than initially planned and that means that “i am losing”. This is short term thinking (=get as much tokens and cash out as soon as possible). Understandable.
I sincerely believe that on a longer time frame the price will adjust to the new supply so i would recommend to look at things more from the value perspective as having less supply allows faster price swings. In case of more demand the velocity of price increase is faster. Above all everyone is will be getting less tokens so you are not getting less and others more.
Would you explain how exactly it will improve the DAO and the Jupiverse? I still haven’t heard a compelling argument as to why reducing the supply is a good thing. Virtually every argument ‘FOR’ centers around token price and/or FDV. Even the proposal itself states, “We aim to address concerns around high FDV…”
My goal was to show you nobody in community ever cared to lower supply, this is all meow Package of proposals that will result double less JUP yearly into hands of each voter
Address THE only problem you have, give JUP more space and utility on Jup.ag to provoke more demand, do not lower incentives to lower demand further
Again - supply problem is in your heads, doesn’t exist
By reducing the total supply of tokens, burning can create scarcity, which may lead to an increase in the $JUP token’s value as demand remains constant or increases. Token burns can help support the $JUP token’s price by reducing the supply, which can be particularly useful in stabilizing the market during periods of high volatility. By increasing the value of the remaining $JUP tokens, burning can effectively reward existing stakeholders, including investors and users.
Kinda agree with you, burning Jup doesn’t increase demand, burning Jup affects supply, creating mechanisms for the usage of (demand for) Jup should really be the main goal and it should be unambiguous. You suggested revenue sharing and lower fees for stakers margin trading, will add everyone who integrates Jupiter’s products/features pays in Jup & not stables nor SOL.
So far, I haven’t seen Jup being bought & used as prizes for ecosystem competitions and hackathons too
Also, the CWGs can be tasked with finding more of such ventures/avenues that can push demand for Jup.