Well, it could be easy to tackle by excluding those with less than (let’s say) 5 JUP staked (time average)
3 Likes
Hi everybody, new here, though have been a member of the discord and planetary calls for a couple years.
Jupiter has become such an integral, expansive and valuable tool within the Solana ecosystem which makes this a really interesting debate. Obviously everyone comes at it from their own personal bias which makes it more difficult to create consensus.
Some people say, “I don’t think stakers should get rewarded as they already get ASR” I.e. “don’t unfavourably bias people that stake Jup because I haven’t staked Jup” (though obviously staking is a positive thing for the Jup ecosystem).
Others say, “I don’t think volume should be recognised this Jupuary as that was more of a last year thing” I.e. I’m a new user so think we should favour new users with lower volume (new users is positive (though vulnerable to sybils), but volume is also obviously positive because without volume there is no Jup).
My own personal thought is that I’d like to see Jup maintain the tier based system they had from last year - I thought this was a really fair system given the structure of how Jup products operate (though perhaps reduce tiers to 70% of the amounts given supply reduction), and then create a system of multipliers to apply to volume. For example:
Did you sell your Jup airdrop? - multiplier
Does it look like your account is a sybil? - multiplier
Did you stake your Jup airdrop? + multiplier
Did you buy more Jup and stake? + multiplier
Do you vote on Dao proposals? + multiplier
Do you attend planetary calls? + multiplier
Do you engage in discussion on here/Discord/Twitter? + multiplier
Are you helping to expand Jup, through marketing etc. within the community? + multiplier
Jup may want to distinguish between different types of volume of their products, be it swap, Limit, DCA, perps etc. and apply multipliers for those.
Etc. etc.
Obviously you can add other metrics around Jup and Sol ecosystem use but I think the above largely align with the original proposal RE time weighted staking, participation in Dao and suggestions of multipliers.
Jup team can then decide the level of which multipliers are applied - some may be more severe than others. For example, personally I think anyone who sold their original Jup airdrop should have a severe impact on their ability to to get subsequent airdrops - especially within the context of wanting to attract and reward new users.
Anyway - just my two cents! Looking forward to the debate, and of course, voting on the proposal. Jup has become such a positive example of Dao structures within Crypto and I’m really glad to be part of it.
EDIT: have just seen other posts in other threads talking about multipliers, so obviously not a new concept…
4 Likes
Majority of my net worth is staked in JUP from February, I didn’t get any Jupuary airdrop but still invested in JUP as I believe in DeFi, the team and vision, so that’s my bias here.
In UK, perhaps other countries too, staking rewards are class as taxable income. Airdrops can be class as income or capital gains depending on activity.
As we are still in traditional credit system. It’s important to generate steady taxable income and not just capital gains so that we can leverage this to borrow credits such as financing car, tech, get mortgage etc.
With ASR, I can now use this as my taxable income as it is a staking reward. #J4J
From my bias point of view. I think it is extremely important that if Jupuary does continue, we need to include voters too. Even though there’s “already ASR”. This is because Jupuary is essentially dilution to JUP in $ value perspective.
Example: No Jupuary to voters because “there’s already ASR”
Let’s say ASR gave me +50% extra JUP from voting, with Jupuary it carry a risk of say -50% (or x%) on Jup price from dilution which net a 0% (or x%) return in $ value terms for the last 12 months.
Instead of staking and risking dilution. I could of trade/ invest on other projects or memes coins with less risk of dilution.
Therefore Jupuary carries an unknown risk of dilution, so if we don’t include DAO voters because “there’s already ASR” then it won’t fit C.A.T.
Jupuary doesn’t give me C.A.T (Certainty, Alignment. Trust) as a DAO voter.
- No Certainty of risk and reward on ASR vs Dilution
- No Alignment - Dilution is not aligned / best interest of stakeholders
- No Trust - Jupuary airdrop is PVP event
So it’s very important to include voters in the criteria, otherwise it creates an PVP event instead; farmers vs holders/traders vs stakers.
TL:DR
Important to include voters to Jupuary if it does pass. Otherwise;
Jupuary does not fit C.A.T
Jupuary is PVP event
6 Likes
Welcome I appreciate your detailed thoughts about multipliers and stuff it makes it more inclusive to the community ppp not pvp having the criteria based upon more that one factor helps get jup in more hands maybe less or more but either way it gets it out there.
3 Likes
Yea this is also a great technical stand point of it which is also valid, but I remember @weremeow saying that jup is a gift also so gotta keep that in mind even when supporting I would say.
3 Likes
You’re definitely on track! I hope more measures will be put in place. 
4 Likes
Whether old cat or new cat every cat will surely be recognises. Commitment and perseverance! Zero promise. 
4 Likes
Meow has stated that criteria will be discussed after snapshot on November 2nd.
However, I would guess that “fee paying product” users, which drive cash flows (lifeblood) & $JUP stakers will be gifted a Jupuary airdrop.
I’ve been playing in the whole ecosystem all year so I’m just hoping for a tiered distro, as done in the highly successful Jupuary #1 this year.
It’s starting to get close now…
4 Likes
The “dilution” happens in almost any coin, but in this case it’s active users/community instead of VC doing the diluting, so there’s aligned incentives.
Plus, the $JUP 30% Toal Supply Cut token burns will basically mute out the dilution on paper.
So, I forsee only short term negative price action, and that’s if we’re not in a raging bull market at the time…
3 Likes
He confirmed like a month ago
“Snapshot maybe November, may be later idk”
5 Likes
Yeah dilution does happen but it’s rather a massive circa 50% extra supply being airdrop into circulation though…
Originally 1bn JUP but after 30% reduction, we will still face an additional 50% (666m) JUP coming into circulating supply.
Currently we have 1,35bn JUP circulating
3 Likes
True, but there’s no VC lockup overhang to stifle steady growth if 2025 is a bull market.
Remember, over 200M $JUP sat unclaimed in Jupuary #1. Plus, I believe much of it will be staked or held if number go up.
2.05B/7B after Jupuary #2 is fine imo. Even if it dumps 20% for a couple days, it’s just short term price volatility and will still rip in Q1-Q3+ in 2025.
3 Likes
Any attempts to help improve JUP ecosystem should be rewarded, i think we have good discussion on these forums and its better than fragmented discussions over twitter. Maybe the forum/twitter/discord could too get multipliers, don’t see many mention how important this forum is.
5 Likes
In the end, the citeria will be disclosed after and carefully adjusted to meet a certain common ground but to exclude some specific targets of the team.
No one will mourn.
4 Likes
I too will exclude it
But I may add it as multiplier
3 Likes
Just wanted to say that I appreciate all u guys joining the discussion it’s great to hear what everyone thinks even if our opinions differentiate or not 
2 Likes
The community was widely consulted and recommendations adopted in the last jupuary. This will be same.
2 Likes
It’s a great proposal, but i think that the team will discuss it only after they announce snapshot. Whether that will be on Nov 2nd or later than that as Meow said
2 Likes
I understand everyone’s beliefs that people that meaningfully contribute to the community via voting and proposals is important. Although I do think we need to highlight and advocate for the actual active users of the tools as well. Perps was not a great product in January. It took time for it to handle high volume and the users should be rewarded for putting their money to the develpment as BETA users.
Lets not neglect the people that tested and worked through the bugs which in turn helped fund the project.
5 Likes
I agree 
especially concerning early Perps users. However, I’m biased as I did 1M+ in volume when fees were still 0.1%/$1:smiling_imp:
I think a multiplier for fee based product volume like last year’s 3x multiplier on Limit Order volume (only fee based product at time of snapshot,
) would make sense fr.
2 Likes