Stop the Sell Pressure: Real Yield, Real Utility, Real Governance for JUP

This is a replay to a very good essay, wrote by Rodrigues770471
that you can find and read here: DAO Proposal: Reward Long-Term Stakers & Build Real Yield

Long-Term Staking & Real Yield – A Step in the Right Direction

Firstly, thank you for introducing a proposal that focuses on rewarding long-term stakers and building real yield for JUP holders. This is absolutely a move in the right direction. Encouraging longer holding periods and providing tangible returns can help align incentives between the protocol and its community. It shows that we’re starting to prioritize sustainable tokenomics over short-term hype. I fully support the spirit of this proposal – it’s a positive signal that Jupiter DAO is looking beyond pure speculation and trying to give $JUP holders meaningful value for their commitment.

However, while I appreciate the direction, I believe we need to address some deeper issues to ensure this initiative truly succeeds. The concept is great, but the devil is in the details (and the broader context). Below I outline several critical perspectives and suggestions that build on the proposal’s goals, with the aim of strengthening JUP’s long-term value and genuinely empowering the community.

It’s Not an “Emissions” Problem – It’s the Supply Overhang

One key point: the core issue with $JUP’s token economics is not ongoing inflation from new token emissions. In fact, no new tokens are being minted out of thin air. The total supply was fixed at 10 billion, and after the recent burn it’s down to 7 billion. The problem is that those remaining 7 billion JUP are already allocated (to the team, investors, community incentives) and are gradually being released. In other words, a huge portion of supply is still destined to hit the market over time, and everyone knows it. This creates a persistent overhang and constant sell pressure – even if emissions per se have “stopped,” the circulating supply will continue to expand as locked tokens unlock.

The 3 billion token burn was a welcome move (reducing the maximum supply from 10B to 7B), but it didn’t change the underlying dynamic: a large supply of JUP is still scheduled to flood into circulation in the coming years. Investors and traders aren’t blind to this. They price it in, leading to weaker confidence in the token’s long-term scarcity. Every time an unlock or distribution happens, people expect a dump. This expectation of future sell-offs is depressing the price today. So while rewarding long-term stakers is a good idea (to encourage holding), we must recognize it’s fighting an uphill battle against this known supply glut.

In short, JUP’s challenge isn’t unchecked minting, it’s managing the release of the pre-minted supply. Any effective long-term incentive plan should consider how to mitigate the impact of those inevitable unlocks. Otherwise, even loyal stakers may find their efforts offset by continuous sell pressure from the steady stream of tokens entering the market.

JUP Lacks Fundamental Utility (So Far)

Let’s be frank: right now JUP is mostly a speculative asset with limited fundamental value to regular users. Aside from governance voting rights, there isn’t a strong reason for the average user to hold and use JUP in the Jupiter ecosystem. Yes, staking JUP gives you a say in DAO proposals and some Active Staking Rewards (which themselves are just more JUP tokens), but beyond that, what can you do with JUP? Not much at the moment. This means most holders are holding because they hope the price will go up, not because they need JUP for anything.

That’s a risky situation. If a token’s value is driven only by speculation and hype, it’s fragile – especially in a bear market or when those large unlocks occur. Unless we add real utility to JUP, there’s no compelling reason to buy or hold it long-term. Governance alone isn’t enough; many investors won’t lock up funds just for voting rights on proposals that the core team mostly initiates. And receiving more JUP as a reward for staking (essentially diluting someone else’s share to pay you) is not “real yield” – it’s more like a musical chairs redistribution of the existing pie.

The proposal’s focus on “real yield” gives me hope that we’re recognizing this issue. Real yield implies rewards backed by actual revenue or value creation, not just inflation. That’s exactly what JUP needs. But beyond yield, we need to make JUP useful. The token should ideally become an integral element of Jupiter’s platform, not an afterthought. Only by embedding JUP into the ecosystem’s core activities will demand for the token organically grow, supporting its value even as more supply unlocks.

Ideas to Give JUP Real Utility and Value

If we want JUP to be more than just a governance token, we should take inspiration from successful exchange and DeFi tokens (think BNB, UNI, etc.) that have become essential in their ecosystems. Here are a few ideas for how JUP’s utility and real yield could be enhanced:

  • Trading Fee Discounts for Holders/Stakers: Encourage traders to hold and stake JUP by offering reduced fees on Jupiter’s platform (especially for high-frequency activities like perpetual trading or swaps). For example, someone staking a certain amount of JUP could get, say, 20% off fees. This creates an immediate, tangible benefit to owning JUP if you use Jupiter’s services. It worked wonders for BNB on Binance – JUP can emulate that for Jupiter.
  • Staking Tiers Unlocking Platform Benefits: Create tiered rewards or features based on how much JUP a user stakes. Higher tiers might unlock better borrowing rates, higher lending APYs, early access to new products, or increased referral rewards. This gamifies long-term holding – users will want to accumulate and stake more JUP to get the better perks. It also ties the token’s value to the actual usage of the Jupiter protocol.
  • Protocol Fees for Buybacks & Burns: The protocol currently generates fees from trading and other services. Allocate a portion of those fees (e.g. x%) to regularly buy JUP off the open market and immediately burn it. This directly returns value to token holders by reducing supply and countering some of that sell pressure. Importantly, these buybacks should be automatic and transparent – not just promises. If Jupiter’s usage grows, the buybacks grow, creating a positive feedback loop for JUP’s price. (Note: The key is instant burns; simply accumulating buyback tokens in a wallet or redistributing them slowly doesn’t have the same confidence-boosting effect as true burns – litter.box method)
  • Sharing Revenue with Stakers (Real Yield in USDC): Perhaps the most powerful incentive – share a portion of protocol revenues with JUP stakers in a stable asset like USDC. This would mean if you stake JUP, you earn a steady yield denominated in real value, not more JUP. For instance, if Jupiter generates sizable trading fees, a percentage could be periodically distributed to stakers as USDC dividends or buy JUP which is then given to stakers (effectively the same as a dividend). This aligns stakers with the platform’s success: the more revenue Jupiter makes, the higher the payout for those staking and supporting the network. It turns JUP into a kind of cash-flow asset, not just a speculative token.

Implementing even a couple of the above would significantly strengthen JUP’s value proposition. These ideas would transform JUP from a purely speculative token into a token with real demand and yield. They’re not far-fetched – many other crypto platforms have similar mechanisms. The goal is to make participating in the Jupiter ecosystem (trading, lending, etc.) synergistic with holding JUP, so that the token’s fate is directly tied to the platform’s success. If JUP becomes necessary or at least highly beneficial to use Jupiter’s products, people will want to buy and hold it, even as new supply releases, because there’s a fundamental reason to own it.

Empower the DAO – Real Alignment, Not Just a Rubber Stamp

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the drive to improve JUP’s tokenomics and utility needs to come from the community itself (the DAO), not just top-down from the core team. I say this because up to now, many of the major decisions regarding JUP (token burns, airdrops, reward allocations, etc.) have seemed to be conceived by the team and then passed through the DAO for approval. While it’s good that the team is taking initiative, the DAO often ends up feeling like a feedback group or a rubber stamp rather than an empowered governing body.

If we want long-term stakers to truly feel rewarded and invested, we should also give them a real voice in shaping JUP’s future. Stakers right now technically have voting power, but in practice they have little influence over the strategic direction or how value is distributed – those calls are mostly made by the team. That dynamic needs to change for true decentralization and alignment.

How can we do this? For one, the best ideas for JUP’s utility and rewards should be actively solicited from the community, and the community should have the tools and information needed to propose formal changes. For example, if a community member or a group has a solid plan for implementing fee-sharing with stakers, they should be able to bring that proposal forward and not have it dismissed outright. The team should welcome these grassroots proposals, help refine them, and then let the DAO genuinely decide. When the community sees their ideas being taken seriously and enacted, confidence in the token and the project soars.

Right now there’s a perception that the team isn’t truly interested in sharing power or aligning financially with token holders. Everything of value (rewards, fees, new features) is decided and distributed from the top. That breeds frustration and apathy among long-term holders. To turn this around, the DAO needs to be treated as a partner in innovation, not just an echo chamber. Give stakers and community members a seat at the table in designing JUP’s economics – after all, it’s their investment on the line. Perhaps form community working groups to explore token utility ideas, or hold open discussions where the team commits to act on well-supported DAO proposals.

In short, rewarding long-term stakers isn’t just about throwing them extra tokens or yield; it’s also about giving them real governance power and a sense of ownership in the network’s evolution. If the community is empowered to drive changes that benefit everyone, you’ll see a much stronger commitment to JUP (and far less inclination to dump tokens at the first opportunity).

Conclusion: Constructive Criticism for a Stronger JUP

I’m glad to see the “Reward Long-Term Stakers & Build Real Yield” proposal – it shows we’re starting to address the right questions. The concepts of incentivizing loyalty and creating real value flows are exactly what JUP needs at this stage. My critique above is meant to be constructive: to ensure that as we refine this proposal (and future ones), we tackle the root issues holding JUP back.

To summarize my points:

  • Address the supply overhang: Find ways to counter the inevitable release of tokens with equally strong reasons to hold JUP (through burns, increased demand, etc.).
  • Add true utility: Make JUP indispensable within Jupiter’s ecosystem – not just a governance token but a key to unlock benefits and savings on the platform.
  • Provide real yield: Whenever possible, reward stakers with value that isn’t just more tokens – whether that’s a share of fees in USDC or other mechanisms, real yield will set JUP apart from mere inflationary reward tokens.
  • Empower the community: Let the DAO lead and innovate on these initiatives. Encourage and implement community-driven ideas to align everyone’s interests, rather than everything coming from the core team.

By incorporating these considerations, we can make this good proposal truly great. It’s not just about boosting the token price – it’s about building trust and long-term value for Jupiter as a whole. If JUP holders see that their stake gives them not only a voice but also economic benefits tied to the platform’s growth, they will be far more likely to stick around for the long haul (and even increase their positions).

Let’s continue this productive discussion and refine our strategy. I believe Jupiter has the ingredients to succeed: a strong product, a passionate community, and now the willingness to improve its tokenomics. With genuine collaboration between the team and DAO, $JUP can evolve from a speculative token into a cornerstone of the ecosystem – one that rewards believers and builders over speculators.

Thanks for considering these perspectives, and I’m eager to see us turn these ideas into action for the benefit of all long-term JUP holders.

I hope for the better - ihateoranges

9 Likes

We’re freaking tired of coming up with ideas for you to never reply or even encourage them. That’s become clear that you don’t give a single f about the token and all the things being discussed here. Shame on you @meow

3 Likes

How come this outburst what happened?

all we need to know ..new steps, new projects.. the best ideas comes from the roundTABLE 2030 .. follow the lives with the principal team and be a good cat .. (my best wishes ..do not sell :folded_hands: or take your notes and use your maths to calculates the time to unstake include the 30 days .. but wait to receive any returns for you loyalty..) be a good and smart cat :zipper_mouth_face:

2 Likes

Hi Jen. Being a good cat here is only for those who don’t want to create anything and accept everything from the privileged team. Those who are outside must join, create a valid product, register it and then propose it here or elsewhere. We are not here to please the privileged.

2 Likes

I believe jup should play significant role on JUPNET launch in few months, the omnichain network. Uncertainty might happen, I think at the long run we all known Jup is here to stay for long time.

2 Likes

This is excellent, hoping that @meow and @Kash read and give it consideration, or at minimum, set up a time for further discussion.

Again, thank you for your time in putting this together.

1 Like

Hey hey - thanks for the patience on the reply. lot of stuff going on right now.

as i mentioned in the other post, definitely intruiged by how we can have better long-term alignment and more voting power for long-term stakers.

Re: Supply Overhang
Yes there are indeed tokens to be unlocked, as is the case with effectively every other token project.

Strongly disagree that the expectation of future sell-offs is depressing the price today, unless the point is that this is a broader market point that is true for nearly all tokens. That may or may not be true, but i’m not the best person to make that assessment tbh.

But this is not unique to Jupiter, nor is it even unique to crypto. Unlocks happen for stratups and public companies alike. The goal is of course to create enough value, enough narrative momentum, etc to make sure people understand that the project is building for the long term.

Outside of burning additional tokens, what would you suggest to “mitigate the impact of those inevitable unlocks”? Jupiter is already giving 50% of protocol revenue to the Litterbox Trust, which then accumulates JUP and locks it for multiple years (~28m JUP already locked). That seems like a strong and specific effort on our end, but curious as to what else you think should be done.

RE; Ideas to Give JUP More Utility

  • Discounted Trading Fees: its an option, something we’ve considered internally.
  • Staking Tiers: we don’t have borrow/lending rates, so not sure how this would work. early access is interesting, but typically for products we like to roll out to all users so we can learn/get feedback as quickly as possible.
  • Protocol Fees: as mentioned above, 50% of protocol fees go towards the Litterbox Trust which buys JUP and locks it. The truth is that JUP is a valuable resource, and given we’ve already burnt 3b tokens it doesn’t seem wise to me to continue to burn more. Locking it has a similar effect over the next 2 years, while still giving the team/community the flexibility to invest it in value-creating initaitves in the future as needed.
  • Sharing Revenue: this one comes up a lot, but it’s got 3 problems. First, we’re already giving 50% of revenue to the litterbox trust. We need to keep revenue for operations and investments, as does any other business. Second, given how many stakers there are, the actual amount of revenue being shared would be quite small. Third, if people start to think of JUP as purely a cash-flow asset, rather than a growth asset, in times where revenue falls the token will be even less attractive. Growth is the key focus of the story for Jupiter, as we have a lot of new things to build and a lot more users coming our way. Turning JUP into an IBM type property is not a wise business move at this time.

RE: Empowering the DAO
Agreed for sure that it’s good to empower the DAO - we’re currently in a phase where the DAO is still a baby though. The DAO itself needs time to identify its core purpose, the best processes to achieve that purpose, and to find the community leaders/talent necessary to execute. This stuff wil take time.

We do welcome grassroots proposals, and will have a process in the mid-term for community proposals that fall within the scope of the DAO to go to a vote.

But to be clear: use of the protocol fees and fundamental tokenomics decisions that do not affect the DAO Treasury/Community Reserve are not in the scope of the DAO.

E.g. burning 3b JUP required the community reserve to also burn tokens, hence the DAO vote.

The Litterbox Trust plan did not require the community reserve, and accordingly didn’t require a DAO vote.

I love seeing the ideas that you and others are proposing - they’re great food for thought, and are taken into consideration and discussed internally. The DAO is indeed a partner in innovation in that sense.

I’d also push back on the idea that the governance power is not real. It’s hard for me to think of another DAO that has our level of votes where the votes are meaningful. It is true that the DAO doesn’t decide on everything, and is not governing over every last detail of the product suite. But that is good! The DAO should focus on things that they are best at, and the Team should focus on things they are best at. Together, we can come to the best outcomes.

RE: Conclusion
Thank you for your constructive feedback and ideas! I genuinely do appreciate the sentiment, the creativity, and the approach you’re taking.

1 Like

replied below! check it out and let me know what you think

1 Like

brother/sister - please have a bit of empathy. there are many things going on, including literally thousands of messages across multiple channels.

you cannot reasonably expect a response to every post within 1 day.

and i responded below, btw

Ppl can always do what they want. But the truth is - To save and preserve the system, you don’t need to rob it

Disagree for “Empower the DAO”.
Majority in a community is shortsighted and greedy, and most of the time, they wont care longterm development of a project but only shortterm pumping their bag..
In our space, any proj lead by so-called a “DAO” could get success so far? The ans is No becoz this model doesnt work and I would say people always mis-use the word “DAO”.
An utopian “DAO” should be: everyone works for a project without asking an benefit as they are already the stakeholder of the proj. Proj good=their investment good. However, majority just wanna sit here and wait for the pump without doing anything.
And also, as mentioned abt the shortsighted majority, the vote from them is usually for their own interest only in which it fails to align with the longterm development of the project.
If empower those holders, every shitty proposal will be passed as they wont have a look on the proposal and think twice but just vote yes.
Just imagine someone propose “Should Jupiter allocates 50% of revenue to stakers”..I can say this kind of vote must be passed but u still think this is good for the development?

1 Like

Really appreciate you taking the time to reply. I know things are moving fast. I’m not sure who @ihateoranges is in the discord, but they’ve put together quite a few really good posts/assessments here on Jup Research.

I am not expecting any of this to be resolved in 24hrs, but do hope that we can continue to have these discussions, identify what is working, and more importantly what isn’t, and work together (within our scope) to improve them.

I think we can all agree that it is an iterative process, and getting responses directly from you are part of that.

I know that in the past, I have felt that the votes are just rubber stamps on decisions that were already made and would be moving forward regardless. E.g. the famous 2030 Vote. That said, it all comes down DAO Scope and Purpose, once that is identified and clear…participation should feel much more organic.

I would also like to advocate for moving to a Ranked Choice Voting, or system where proposals need to achieve more than just a plurality to move forward:

Yes > No + Abstain

That’s what I got for now. Keeping my eye out for the DAO Proposal dropping today.

like that one! got my support

yeah for sure committed to keeping the conversation going! just need patience and understanding to be able to get to everyone.

100% agreed - we iterate our way to success.

re: the rubber stamp point, there have been a few votes that have failed (e.g. 1st Jupuary vote, the logo change vote), so its hard for me to think that its a rubberstamp situation. even the 2030 vote passed with a solid majority.

ranked choice voting is def nice! can explore it more for votes with many options. what you ask for (“yes > no + abstain”) is already the case - all Yes votes have had more than 50% of the total votes in order to pass

cheers!

2 Likes

Thanks for the update! Yeah I just went back through and not sure why I thought the votes were passing with a plurality.

1 Like