As stakers, we will be the ones most affected by the Jupuary airdrop, as it will have a significant impact on the value we receive. Given the importance of this decision, it’s essential that we have all the necessary information before casting our votes.
In order to make the right decision, we need to be fully aware of the criteria behind the airdrop. Transparency will allow us to evaluate the potential impacts and vote in a way that benefits the long-term success of the ecosystem.
Additionally, to prevent opportunistic farming behavior due to the public release of criteria, I propose that we have at least one snapshot taken before the vote. This would help maintain fairness and ensure that only those truly invested in the long-term success of the project benefit from the airdrop.
By having both transparency and safeguards like a pre-vote snapshot, we can ensure that the Jupuary decision is made with the best interest of the community in mind.
I actually think this is a good idea, but the problem is finding a proposal that everyone agrees on is somewhat of an impossible tasks and how many attempts at a proposal would be needed? Surely we should just trust the devs at this point to get it done correctly with the best intentions for users in mind?
Too complicated, would need to be heavily considered on the forums with polls before hand to fine tune specific criteria before a proposal could be created by the team. Is it worth it?
I generally agree with your thoughts and suggestions here, but it’s important to point out that the team has been quite transparent before making any decisions. I recall it being mentioned even in the recent planetary call by @0xSoju when asked that the criteria for Jupuary could only be discussed after the snapshot was taken and following Mei’s essay.
At the same time, I am seriously concerned about some of the responses here of outright telling you that transparency isn’t important and that we should “JUST TRUST THE TEAM”.
That goes against C.A.T.
That goes against community governance.
That goes against the foundation of Bitcoin and crypto.
Finally, are we sure the forum is not infiltrated by farmers without any stake in the governance? I refuse to believe free humans with real money staked in JUP are against transparency for voters. Simply wild.
I think Jupuary is a simple question; “Should these tokens enter circulation or not?”. They will either end up in circulation or they wont, simple as that. Nobody can guarantee what happens next regardless of criteria, and I fundamentally believe that Jupuary vote should be decided before forming any criteria.
Furthermore I believe that forming criteria before the vote will lead to people voting on an entirely different question; “Will I get enough tokens in the Jupuary airdrop to justify the tokens entering circulation?”, and I think thats the wrong approach.
You’re absolutely right to have concerns, but I have to say, it’s hard to find a team as transparent as the Jup team. We should judge a team by their actions, not by unfounded worries about their transparency. In my experience, the Jup team is one of the few that has truly backed up their words with honesty and openness to the community. Credit where it’s due. That being said, I hope no questionable individuals have made their way into this forum!
The tokens are going to enter circulation regardless of whether it’s through Jupuary or not. Meow confirmed a few days ago that there are no further plans for burning tokens, and they believe the tokenomics are already well adjusted. Our responsibility as a community should be to find the best possible distribution method.
The question isn’t just ‘Should these tokens enter circulation?’—it’s about how we can ensure their entry benefits both the project and the community in the long term. That’s why discussing the criteria and having detailed information beforehand is crucial to making an informed decision that protects the ecosystem.
Team always says "A user should use Jupiter and its products if it is best solution for their needs " and about voting they say " stake and vote if you want to be part of decision making , if not maybe voting is not the best place for you ". In my opinion “giving prior knowledge to stakers” doesn’t fit with this approach. Volatility can happen , pump and dump can happen , eligibility might differ from person to person, these have nothing to do with dao vote
I completely agree that the team has been doing an excellent job, and I’m just trying to contribute my small part with proposals that I believe could help the community. My point is mainly about ensuring that we have as much information as possible to make such an important decision.
Honestly, a simple yes/no vote on whether or not to proceed with Jupuary would leave me feeling a bit disappointed. I think we could benefit from a more nuanced approach, with more options and clearer information to make the best decision for the project and its community.
It’s true that we may never find a proposal or distribution plan that satisfies everyone completely. However, my point is that the Jupuary vote shouldn’t just be a simple yes/no decision. Considering the scale of this airdrop and its potential impact, I believe it would be much more effective if the community could vote between 2-3 different distribution proposals put forward by the team.
This way, we could have a meaningful discussion about the pros and cons of each option and come to a more informed decision as a community.
Additionally, one of those options could always be not doing the Jupuary at all. This would give us a chance to weigh all the possibilities, ensuring that the decision made reflects the best possible outcome for the project.
We’re talking about introducing 700M new tokens into the market.
Yes, I absolutely think it’s worth taking our time to ensure the best possible distribution. Rushing a decision of this magnitude could have lasting consequences on both the value of JUP and the trust within the community
. A well-thought-out approach allows us to prevent negative outcomes, like price drops or airdrop farming, and it’s also an opportunity to show that we, as a community, are committed to the long-term sustainability of the project
It’s a gift depending on how it’s executed. Imagine that, for some reason, we stakers/holders of $JUP receive a small amount of the airdrop, and the price of JUP drops due to the large number of tokens entering the market. Would that still be considered a gift?
With all due respect to the team, in my opinion, Jupuary can no longer be seen as simply a ‘gift’. The potential impact it could have on the project and the current token holders is significant. I understand that the first airdrop could be viewed as a gift since there were no tokens in circulation and no harm could be done. But the situation is different now, and the impact of 700M new tokens entering circulation is another story.
That’s why I believe that for such an Important decision like Jupuary, it’s not enough to just ask ‘Do you want a new Jupuary or not?’. We need the maximum amount of information possible to make the best decision.
I agree with your position but if we make snapshot before the vote then we will vote continuously until team suggests whatever the community wants and i think you know that whenever community is asked for opinion and team provides it - they are never happy because there’s always some group of people no matter how small that will not be satisfied with that.
The point you make here is significant as yes, we want an inclusive debate but more importantly, there must be that understanding that at the end of the day it’s not who shouts out the loudest but what majority want. Hence opinions might vary but there should be that understanding that if majority align with a particular outcome or choice, those who didn’t get it their way should accept and support that outcome. That’s the only way we grow; by agreeing to disagree if it doesn’t go our way & then work with the winning team to support the outcome they voted for.
I agree that the format of Jupuary should be put to a vote, after a snapshot has been taken. However, we should prepare for some tension and FUD… if there is an ASR vote with 3 different Jupuary proposals, there will inevitably be fighting in the community, as different holders stand to benefit differently from each proposal.
I think our community is strong enough to handle the possible tension, but we should prepare for it nonetheless.
I’m looking forward to seeing some really creative and intelligent Jupuary proposals, that make as many catdets happy as possible!
They probably will, yes. But this is not the way imo.
The criteria should not be known before the vote as it would corrupt the vote itself, and to be fair the criteria cannot be known at this point because they have not been made yet. Any Jupuary criteria will be decided through community discussion post-snapshot. If the concern about not knowing the criteria beforehand exists because people want the airdrop to go to the ‘right’ people, they should participate in the discussion to form the criteria itself.
Lol well said mate. Sucks that you even had to state it to another “investor” apparently when everyone holding JUP (or any crypto) should understand the concept of hyperinflation. Is it that they actually don’t understand it, or that they aren’t invested in JUP?