The best way to dilute JUP is by increasing the amount of users that have JUP. Jupuary is airdropping 700million $JUP tokens, diluting the supply (1.35B) by ~34%. We can increase the JUP community by airdropping to:
Users of the platform (swaps, DCA, LO, bridge, etc).
Stakers of the platform.
Voters of the platform.
The Community that markets and pushes JUP daily to give attention to the project and bring in users.
Stakers & Voters (220mil)
Reasoning for 220mil is 441,604,304 JUP staked on Nov 1st. 50% of 441mil = ~220mil. A 50% increase in staked JUP allows stakers to maintain their percentage holdings of the supply following dilution from Jupuary.
How could this be airdropped fairly to stakers?
Reward all stakers (active and non-active)
Reward consistency of voting
Reward amount staked
Remove sybils if tiered
How to allocate the 220mil?
70mil linear to all stakers, without regard to activity.
150mil linear to stakers weighted based on votes.
Linear distribution solves this
Linear solves this. Tiered would need to reward people for finding sybils (LayerZero) or hire companies to investigate sybils.
Only 70mil to stakers, without regard to activity as people can stake to game the snapshot in Nov/Dec. 150mil as activity and size weighted staking can not be gamed when linearly distributed. The total allocation allows users to gain 50% on their staked JUP cancelling decrease in JUP % holdings. Suggestions: Removing wallets with less than 65 JUP staked for the ‘JUP staker allocation’, allowing 155k users to get least 10 JUP when linearly distributed. Moreover, active voters with 12 JUP staked would get a 10 JUP airdrop if they voted in all proposals accumulating 170 overall votes. Removing wallets with less than 170 votes rewards 210k voters with at least 10 JUP.
Equation working out Total Votes per user. JUP allocation weighted by total votes via active voter (explained in image above). Sum of total votes by all users is 3.2billion votes, this is equal to the total votes when you add all proposals, hence likely no errors in my voter allocation calculations.
Equation of how JUP was split after calculating ‘Total Votes’. This method fairly allocates JUP based on proposal participation and amount of JUP staked.
Equation working out Net Staked Amount per user. By subtracting the total withdrawals (including both full and partial unstaking events) from the total inflows, you obtain the Net Staked Amount, which accurately reflects the user’s current staked position.
Equation of JUP share per user after calculating ‘Net Staked Amount’. JUP allocated linearly based on amount of JUP staked on 31st October 2024. This fairly gives an allocation to all stakers.
Special thank you to the Flipside team for re-running and decoding historical data for instructions withdrawPartialUnstaking and OpenPartialUnstaking on the JUP program (voTpe3tHQ7AjQHMapgSue2HJFAh2cGsdokqN3XqmVSj) as the IDL was updated to accommodate these instructions. Cheers to the JUP team and hope you use this research for the staking and voting allocation @meow@0xSoju@siong@9yointern et al.
You can’t game DAO. 0% benefits for anyone who is trying to game the system.
The 2nd Jupuary will send a strong message for existing and future JUP holders and community members regarding what JUP stands for. Fair approach towards people who believe in JUP and Jupiter, and have invested money in the decision making process, will be noticed creating more enthusiasm for JUP and further in to Jupiter products.
It has to make sense to buy and hold (stake & vote) JUP, or existing holders will start moving out. It has to make sense for people who are not yet part of the Jupiter community. And all this will be a strong statement for everyone in this space that the core team of Jupiter cares about JUP holders and are willing to not only improve the suite of Jupiter products but also bring value for the token holders.
Your proposal gives only to whales. If you voted a lot all year. But used 50 or less Jup you would get nothing. Large whales already are getting yearly airdrops. We need more Jup to go to the lower end. Half the wallets are below 1000jup I believe. Giving a bigger portion to them with a time lock feature would distribute voting power across the board.
Every user gets the same amount of JUP per JUP staked for the JUP Staker allocation.
Every user that voted in all proposals gets the same amount of JUP per JUP staked for the JUP Voter allocation.
If the criteria is how many Jup you staked and how many times you’ve voted then yes. But these two actions are separate. By combining them you give it all to whales. I have voted 11 times with ten Jup staked so I would get under ten Jup. A person who voted once but with 1000jup staked would benefit much more. No logic in that. Sorry
@BTC I think you’re a good chad. You’re smart and you’re a solid whale in the community.
Here is my honest feedback about the idea (nothing personal against any person or group)
.
This entire proposal is build on one assumption:
‘‘JUP Stakers are losing value by holding JUP and therefore should get compensated with a 50% bonus on their staked JUP.’’ (stating the assumption of the author, not my opinion).
Without even re-discussing the facts of the matter, we could already conclude the discussion here.
Why?
Because the proposal misses the point of Jupuary. Jupuary is not about compensating JUP holders.
Removing the 220M ‘‘we deserve’’ 50% part from the proposal, it leaves just 30M or 7% as a gift for DAO Stakers. In my proposal I suggested even as much as 110 Million / 25% as a gift. I believe we can make it up to 70M - 110M (25%) without completely wacking Jupuary out of balance, while still providing a very strong financial incentive for aligning with Jupuary.
I must admit, this proposal for 250M going to stakers is much less outrageous as those of some others calling many hundreds of Millions of JUP / Dollars going to stakers.
Your proposal seems to resonate mainly with a hand full of few large stakers who are active on Jupresearch which are yourself @BTC, @miuq and a few others.
This is not something the team or the general Jupiter community is in favour of.
Many here will find it hard to take it serious due to the clear conflict of interest. You’re suggesting a large allocation for JUP Stakers, when you yourself are indeed a large JUP Staker.
Even IF there was any merit to the idea of needing 50% compensation, the ~ 50%+++ Active Staking Rewards (ASR) of the last year would have more than made up for it.
700mil tokens will dilute JUP supply, a 50% increase in staked JUP does allow stakers to maintain their percentage holdings of the supply. These are both factual.
‘‘JUP Stakers are losing value by holding JUP’’ = assumption of an unknown future outcome.
Would be invalidated by JUP price going to $2 or $5 or $10. Supply increase of an asset is never an issue as long as demand is much stronger.
‘‘Therefore should get compensated with a 50% bonus on their staked JUP’’ = assumption of a particular solution being the only or the best solution.
This is only one of the ways to deal with it, but the suggested solution itself is also based on an assumption. Increasing demand for JUP could also solve the issue.
You can increase the supply of food, but as long as the demand is growing equal or greater, price won’t be negatively effected.
As long as the demand for JUP (due to speculation and other factors) grows equal or greater than the supply increase, the price of JUP (value) will be moving upwards.
