I think in the bigger picture worrying too much comes with doubt, objectively that is always worth considering but practically it might paint a too black picture. Instead of thinking just about the worst case, let’s also see the reverse scenario. If the airdrop is put out their in in one big boom, we will see also many just upgrading their stack and increase their vote bag. No in a scenario where you put no leash on the airdrop, the people holding it will send an equally strong message if not even a bigger statement.
There are always pros and cons surrounding airdrops, but in the bigger picture I think trust and narrative play a big role.
I like to improve the future process, like with the rumored loyalty checks and whatnot, I liked your proposal there a lot. But as it stands now I would just let it go full power for now.
Not sure where or why you think linear distribution will have less of a supply shock. When tokens are concentrated into fewer hands, there is more ability to co-ordinate and have an even BIGGER impact on price if dumped. Additionally, the more wallets that get the airdrop the far better liquidity is fragmented and most IMPORTANTLY less concentrated voting power ergo, more decentralised. Price is a factor that shouldn’t be the focus of this airdrop.
I do not think price should be at the focus of implementing certain criteria, a hybrid linear/tiered is a better suggestion. The entire point of the airdrop is to further decentralise the DAO and allow more participants to engage with the ecosystem. The focus should not be PRICE. Vesting is not a good idea, it adds extra layers of unwanted complexity. We need further inflation to improve the decentralised nature of the protocol.
I think there is a misunderstanding here.
I didn’t mean a linear distribution in amount but in time. That is not about the criterias of the airdrop but the way those amounts are distributed in time.
Some people could have a big airdrop and just want to take profit and go. If they do so in a certain date that could significantly impact price. If the distribution is linear in time (that does not impact amounts that are distributed) maybe that impact could be less significant and create less panic sell.
That sayed, and reading all the contributions in that topic, I understand that this is not necessarily the main factor that we should focus about this airdrop. But I just wanted to be clear about what I tried to explain earlier
I disagree with the second proposal. Instead of vesting, you could release periodically and you would get the same effect.
Nevertheless. I would like to add a bit of creativity and I would consider the following system:
Eligible users could be airdropped a minimum amount of tokens (TBD) immediately;
Users eligible for higher allocations could be given an NFT redeemable for the amount of JUP they are entitled to after 3 and/or 6 months (with interest). Those NFTs could be traded before the redeem date on a specific section of the platform. Those NFTs would have a minimum market value at any given time represented by the present net value of the underlying assets. Early redeems could be possible after a month with decreasing penalties depending on how early the will be redeemed in respect of the maturity date.
Maybe it’s just silly, but I think it would be a nice innovation and would contribute to dilute in time the release mitigating the inflow of new tokens on the market
I think your proposals have a lot of potential, but I’m a bit concerned about the risk of Sybil attacks, especially with the possibility of individuals creating thousands of wallets.
Regarding your second proposal, while I agree with overall sentiment, I feel it might be a bit too strict:
For those looking to claim the airdrop immediately, a 40% deduction seems quite harsh. I suggest revising this to a 25% deduction instead…
To encourage long-term engagement, I propose that 25% of the airdrop be vested for three months. This approach could incentivize participants to use their wallets to vote and engage actively in the ASR Rewards for 2025. By doing so we may show the community the benefits of voting and staking, we might foster a culture of active participation and loyalty as well as having 25 percent of the initial claimed airdrop staked.
Overall, this could help create a more engaged community while still maintaining some checks against potential exploiters.
Whatever you decide is probably the best, i don’t think locking for a period is an elegant solution.
JUP #1 was perfect and a good framework to use for JUP#2 just don’t forget to reward the community, twitter/discord/forums/youtubers/bloggers etc
<3
I’m not sure what the issue is with price shock, actually I am hoping for price shock so I can buy more. These events needs to be seen as a gift for those who truely believe. Buy low and stake for the future.
I couldn’t agree more. These restrictions are something I’ve been arguing against for a while, so thank you for being direct and transparent, as always, by saying you “hate games.” That honesty is what has built so much trust around Jup as a project—you consistently deliver on your promises and take responsibility when things don’t go as planned. This community has strong faith in you and the team’s leadership. We’re confident that as you engage with these debates, you’ll arrive at a fair and sensible solution for the upcoming Jupuary airdrop.
Wouldn’t mind this if it’s possible so that this cloud of token release just gets wiped out of the system and we can just focus on building the ecosystem
I think all in all, you are right. I think most people are concerned with preserving the token price and trying safe guard holders of the token. However, one thing is true for great projects like JUPITER, It is resilient enough to withstand more than we think. As a result rewarding the participant without any restrictions should workout in the long run. #WhenInDoughtZoomOut
focus shouldn’t be price but to find new liquid holders though substantial airdrops. Celebrate the airdrop, talk more about it on socials, onboard more sol maxis
Thanks for sharing the tweet about liquidity depth, it further affirms my belief that any proposal to cancel jupuary is short-sighted.
Anyone who truly believes in the long-term Jup thesis should be encouraging further distribution of Jup to users (new and old) who will themselves become advocates for Jup and keep building the incredible community which is Jup’s main point of difference.
Anyone who anticipates that further emissions to users will result in dumping and price shock, is not a true believer in Jup’s PPP mission…
