Nice to see we really got point by point arguments and back and forth here.
I really think this all shows how healthy the debate atmosphere in Jupresearch can be.
4 Likes
I really hope the team at the next Jup Planetary call discuss the importance of not being a “yes men” and forming their own opinion regarding votes. Seems most “go with the flow” or are too scared to have the opposite opinion. (im not lol)
Hey @0xSoju @meow @Kash Could this be on the agenda for a future planetary call?
3 Likes
Its honestly really fun, most people dont give af about jup behind the scenes, but i love connecting with like minded individuals like yourself.
3 Likes
I think the vote will pass overwhelmingly in favor of reduction…
so my vote won’t matter. that’s why i’ll be voting no just to show some support for more different voices. and i think the price appreciation in anticipation of reduction is already baked in. it could actually be a sell the news event.
2 Likes
@lochie2001, Thank you for the post. We need more substantive polemics with the team’s proposals. Meow and all the rest do a great job, but I feel like too many people are uncritically accepting their ideas without understanding implications. Posts like yours provoke independent thinking. 
1 Like
Did a review on your items and here is my feedback:
- Impact on Token Accumulators: »we risk alienating the very people we want to hold and support $JUP«. IMO this statement is not logical from various angles as why would long term holders and supporters want to leave JUP if total supply is reduced. Less $JUP means that there will be less $JUP available for you to buy and together with the idea that if JUP ecosystem continues to strive it would cause more scarcity, FOMO and that drives the demand for what is available. Please understand that less supply available creates more price swings in both directions = prices moves faster. Here a simple math: If you have 10 bn you need 10 bn inflows (USDC) to double the price of the token and if you have 7 bn you only need 7 bn of inflows (USDC) to double the price. → as stated, faster price swings. Those that really hold and support JUP will benefit long term due to continuous demand for the token (if JUP continues to strive) and less supply available and should know that its not about the amount of tokens they hold but the value they have from the amount they hold. Its all about perspective.
- Staking Commitments by Meow and the JUP Team: Don’t really understand the statement so i skip it but can say that Meow as far as i sense it is here for the long game, not to dump at first opportunity like probably good majority of the holders that just wait for the good exit. Even so i can be wrong, i still have my perception.
- Loyalty Clause and Geometric Nature of Airdrop: I link this to item 1 reply when i stated that its not about token amount but about the value you hold. Even if you got 1000 tokens before and now will get 700 tokens from your airdrop there will be less of total supply and the price will eventually adjust vs the available supply on a longer time frame. It won’t be instant, it will take time but once it starts it will go much faster. The only one that is not in favor of this is the short-term holders who want to get rich quick. What should be rewarded is people that use the site for real and as well add value to the community. And above all everyone should be grateful that they are even rewarded for using the protocol and people got too spoiled and expect doing little to nothing and get a lot. JUP does not owe anyone anything, its their goodwill and good nature to spread those tokens to the community under certain requirements.
- Governance Power: It all relative and don’t get attached to the amount but look at it more from the portion (pie) perspective. If you have today 1 million $JUP staked your voting power would present 0.01% (only if you take the whole supply) and if the supply gets reduced to 7 bn, then your current voting power would increase to 0.01428% → this is an increase of 42.8% of voting power and »does not diminishes the influence of loyal holders« as you say. Your current bag has an edge vs all the future supply available ready to be staked.
- Uncertain Impact on $JUP Price: Correct, the reduction of supply itself won’t move the price unless there is price action while this point has nothing to do with why somebody should vote for or against price reduction Its only relevant for those that speculate on the price which is outside the proposal so hereby its irrelevant.
- Effective Airdrop Criteria Can Prevent Dumping: I don’t see how this would be related to a for or against price reduction so i am skipping this one.
- Risk of Losing Faith: Short term thinking and as already stated and again, supply change won’t impact the price unless there is market demand behind. Pivot back to item 1 reply to understand. If somebody wants to fud based on »the price did not increase, after supply was reduced« it explains their lack of understanding about how the market works. If like this then be it let them do it, this means that the only one who will remain is the genuine community who is in tune with the JUP culture.
2 Likes
Sadly, I feel the same about this approach. I’m not confident than yes vote will win
2 Likes
This is the sort of healthy debates we need in here. It’s coming from a deep rooted believe and love for the Jup project. Hence it should be encouraged. That said, I had done a fair bit of research prior to VOTING FOR this proposal. Please see below some key points from my research that persuaded me to vote in favour of this proposal. I have copied it so that I don’t change the context and others can read it from the original source. It counters most of the points you raised to vote against this proposal. Please take a look. Not sure it will change your vote but worth taking a look. I understand reference is made in this article to ‘ICO unsold tokens’ but the reduction in token supply discussed here can be applied to same context in the Jup supply reduction from the way I look at. Hence the reason I found the resource helpful in informing my decision.
“How token burn can increase the value of your token and attract more investors?
One of the most effective ways to create scarcity and demand for your token is to implement a token burn mechanism. Token burn is the process of permanently removing a certain amount of tokens from circulation, reducing the total supply and increasing the value of each remaining token. Token burn can also signal your commitment to the project and your confidence in its future success, attracting more investors and increasing their trust in your token. In this section, we will explore the benefits of token burn from different perspectives and provide some examples of how token burn can be implemented in your ICO.
Some of the benefits of token burn are:
-
Increasing the value of your token: By reducing the supply of your token, you are increasing its scarcity and making it more valuable. This can create a positive feedback loop, as a higher token price can attract more investors, who can then drive the price even higher. For example, Binance, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges, burns a portion of its native token BNB every quarter, based on the trading volume on its platform. This has helped BNB to become one of the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization, with a price increase of over 1000% in 2021.
-
Rewarding your loyal holders: By burning your token, you are effectively distributing the value of the burned tokens to the existing holders, as their share of the total supply increases. This can incentivize your holders to keep holding your token, as they can benefit from the price appreciation and the reduced selling pressure. For example, MakerDAO, a decentralized lending platform, burns its governance token MKR whenever a loan is repaid, increasing the value of the remaining MKR and rewarding the holders who participate in the governance of the platform.
-
enhancing your credibility and reputation: By burning your token, you are demonstrating your confidence in your project and your willingness to sacrifice some of your potential profits for the long-term success of your token. This can enhance your credibility and reputation in the crypto community, as you are showing that you are not just interested in a quick cash grab, but in creating a sustainable and valuable token. For example, Ethereum, the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, plans to implement a token burn mechanism in its upcoming upgrade, Ethereum 2.0, which will make its token ETH more scarce and deflationary, increasing its appeal to investors and developers.”
5 Likes
Thank you so much for your discussion!
- My concern is that reducing the airdrop by 30% will directly affect those loyal holders who have been accumulating $JUP with the expectation of a certain level of rewards. These are the people who have shown faith in the project from the beginning. A sudden change in the reward structure could be seen as a move that reduces their expected returns, which might lead to frustration or disillusionment, even if the long-term value of their holdings might increase.
Example:
- Consider two holders:
- Holder A, who was set to receive 100,000 tokens.
- Holder B, who was set to receive 100 tokens.
- With a 30% reduction, Holder A will now receive 70,000 tokens (a reduction of 30,000 tokens), while Holder B will receive 70 tokens (a reduction of 30 tokens).
- The relative impact on Holder A is far greater in absolute terms. Losing 30,000 tokens is substantial, and while the value may increase, the immediate perception of a significant reduction in their expected reward can be discouraging.
Thats what i meant by "alienation
Yeah i totally understand this, but as mentioned above, those who have strived hard all year to get tier 1 airdrop take the greatest hit, compared to tier 5 who dont give two shits about JUP and will sell their 70 JUP for peanuts.
Yeah youre not wrong, but the point i was making is this:
Traditionally, long term holders stake and vote. Thus, they will likely get the bigger airdrop and hold a bigger peice of the pie. if the reduction occurs it puts more power into the hand of those who hold barely any jup. IK people dont like whales holding, but whale = loyalty = beleif in JUP ecosystem IF youre a jup whale, your a pretty damn good person imod
Yeah i agree, let them leave. However, people will panic sell if there is a rally behind it."
2 Likes
Yeah i understand all those economic principals with supply and demand, hwoever, at the end of the day we are increasing circulating supply.
This is effectively allowing for more “sellable” tokens. I dont necessarily think they price increase will be that significant at all given people need to keep in mind future jupuary’s comings/ (lets be real, the jupuary will be a YES vote… (hopefully) ).
I wont be mad if the burn happens, in fact, most people ive spoken to will vote that way.
But I would be a lot Happier to get a bigger Jupuary airdrop and increase my voting power.
3 Likes
I get your points @lochie2001 but I believe majority of the negative impacts are short term as we all know there will be issuance or release of tokens by a new project through one way or other if all wasn’t released from the launch of the project. So those releases would naturally have some of the negative effects you highlighted above short term. But one can also argue that the extend to which those issues you highlighted can affect the project will be lesser as well short term considering the supply reduction but long term, a supply reduction works out better.
3 Likes
It was explicitly stated that the token reduction proposal was NOT about price. All three reasons you gave are about price.
I still have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why burning is a good thing. Every reason given so far is about price.
If the idea is to get more people involved with the DAO and to get current members more deeply involved, this is accomplished more easily with a larger number of tokens available to disburse vs. fewer.
If the aim is to, “…address concerns around FDV” (which is yet again about price) you can also accomplish that (and I would argue more effectively) by disbursing all of the tokens sooner rather than later and letting the market decide the value.
4 Likes
Agree that’s what Meow stated. He highlighted other reasons other than price in his essay. So far on my research, the price & value impact to the token is what captured my attention. If doing that helps to increase the value of Jup long term plus the other reasons for which meow suggested, for me is one good enough reason for me consider voting for. I strongly believe in democracy & I understand that means different things in different settings. I will align with majority outcome. If majority vote against, I will respect it. So the key here is for people to read and engage in these brilliant debates so they can make informed decisions. We find out tomorrow what the DAO decides through the ballot box and we all align after a brilliant debate to continue building towards achieving that grand vision for Jup laid out in @meow essay.
4 Likes
Well-said,i agree with a lot of these points
2 Likes
What are those other reasons? I can’t seem to find them and I’ve read the proposal numerous times. What am I missing?
2 Likes
First paragraph of the proposal or so reads:
“ This is the first of the series of three JUP-related votes to help build more certainty among the JUP community and the holder base. We aim to achieve this certainty by addressing concerns around high FDV, build in a best-in-crypto level of transparency around token distribution and allow the voters to decide the major parts of the potential emissions….”
Reading through that, I started some research around the impact of token supply reduction to Jup ecosystem which is the 1st of 3 votes to be had. I think that also triggered you as well to do same. My guess is that, the team purposely did that so we can go do our own research so that their view doesn’t impact the vote. Your research concluded it’s not a good idea and others’ concluded the contrary. We can all reach a consensus thru a vote. That’s what we are doing. Let’s just go & vote. We all can align with the majority either way it goes. The back & forth really doesn’t make a difference other than inform others who haven’t reached any decision for themselves yet to do so as it’s clear for us all that we know the pros & cons of supply reduction & based on what we believe is the best, we can vote for it and move on. I am pleased so far that there has been a healthy turn out for the vote which sort of emphasise how important these 3 votes are.
3 Likes
at least the group two doesn’t operate on the reason derived by austrian economic lame
2 Likes
I think its too early for a token reduction. JUP is still in its first year of onboarding voters and new users are attracted by staking rewards. The priority of the first year should be to increase the number of long term voters and users and this happens by rewarding new users for using JUP and engaging with the DAO process. The positive sentiment around the token reduction seems to simply be “number go up”, and I think people will be disappointed when all it does is lower volatility and volume, the life blood of a token. Dont fix it, if it aint broke!
2 Likes
I definitely think there are pros and cons with this vote. Personally I prefer bigger airdrops and don’t really care about trying to pump the price. I hold my investments long-term. I also think that regardless if you hold 100 Jupiter or 10,000 Jupiter. I think everyone should have one vote. That way votes are decided by the majority of the community without the possibility of a group, each with a lot of voting power, being able to potentially control the outcome of votes. If the majority can’t pass a vote and feel like voting is pointless. That’s when people start leaving and projects fail.
3 Likes