Why should the 20% allocated for Stakers in Jupuary have a linear distribution?

Jupiter DAO $JUP
1

Dear friends,

As you know, during the last JUP Rally, Mei mentioned—by quoting a tweet—that a certain percentage (10% or possibly 20%) of the total allocation would be reserved for stakers. Following this logic, and knowing that there are a significant number of Sybil attacks, I would like to propose that only this staker portion of the airdrop be distributed linearly.

Let me explain why. Even my own friend (yes, I’m sorry to expose this, but I’m doing it for everyone’s benefit) participated in the DAO voting with 20 different wallets and staked 200 JUP in each. Now let’s consider my situation: I participated in all 14 votes with a single wallet holding over 100,000 JUP. Meanwhile, my friend also took part in those 14 votes, but with 20 different wallets, each holding just 200 JUP.

If a tier-based system were to be used, imagine that the lowest tier 5 reward from last year’s system, for example, were granted as 1,000 JUP per eligible wallet. My friend’s 20 wallets would collectively receive 20,000 JUP, which is equivalent to what a tier 2 wallet might earn. This, to be frank, doesn’t seem fair.

If Jupiter truly values its DAO and wants to prevent Sybil attacks when distributing allocations to stakers, there’s only one real solution: implement a linear distribution system.

Here’s how it could work: Between 01.01.2024 and 02.11.2024, you calculate the total voting power generated by all participating wallets. Then, for each individual wallet, you determine what fraction of the total votes that wallet contributed during this period. Distribution would be proportional to that fraction. This way, someone who tries to manipulate the system with 20 wallets would only receive rewards proportional to their actual voting power, and having multiple wallets would provide no additional advantage.

I sincerely hope that the administrators consider this proposal. Meow.

11 Likes
2

I think this doesn’t have to even be discussed as we ( staker / voters ) made it really clear before the last proposal that this is the way it should be. If they would go with tiered for stakers now, you would see another huge wave of stakers abandoning the project.

6 Likes
3

Taking into the account the following structure and it most fair what you propose to have the linear distribution system otherwise in a case where you would give fixed amount per wallet, the one having the same amount but spread across several wallets would definitely gain much more. I am pretty confident @9yointern that the team is aware of it and will take all the necessary steps to assure fairness. :upside_down_face:

2 Likes
4

Can’t agree anymore!!!

1 Like
5

Unfortunatly, people who are staking more are taking more risks so “deserve” more.

But i also understand your point

Having the same allocation for everyone may be fun and send a positive message to everyone

6

But we have to eliminate sybill’s bro. Not fun.

7

I mean the more one stakes the bigger allocation should be. If it’s 20%, then for 10JUP staking it’s 2JUP and for 10k JUP staking it’s 2k JUP.

8

I understand your concerns guys, but rewarding stakers twice with linear distribution will further centralise the token ownership instead of decentralising it.
The whale stakers will most def be eligible on pretty much most if not all of the criteria so they will get max allo either way but at same time imo we should avoid further centralisation of token holdings.

9

Did I just accidentally enter a time machine, went 2 months back and participate the same debates again? :smiley:

The core of Jupiter has the feedback and the feedback made them adjust the proposal for stakers to be confortable. Stakers decided to trust the team and it’s pretty clear for them what stakers are after.

Can we just abandon these discussions as these have been discussed pretty intensively already. :joy:

10

yeh but there is the carrot section rewarding frequent votes or adding to jup bag, if that’s on multiple accounts then maybe a boost or bonus is involved might cause the issue OP is saying. I don’t think it can be a bonus, without account linking. but then you can’t force people to link unless the humanness check is somehow semi kyc or something. I vote on multiple accounts to split my risk of a wallet being compromised and for LFG votes its good so you can support proportionally different projects based on how much you like them. I hope there’s linking, I don’t want some added benefit others don’t for how I manage my accounts. I rarely use the same account frequently because I use an account for each type of platform, and when i’m active in that thing that’s where I trade. like one account for kamino lending, then it becomes LPing on kamino then im swapping on that account. another account for tensor/ME gamefi project stuff, then i’m trading tensor/ME there LPing those tokens etc. and my activity in each platform changes, so some wallets I used to use alot, I don’t anymore, as I consider them semi-compromised or associated to rugs. its how I organize my thoughts.

1 Like
11

I think a someonwhat linear but tiered system is what works best.

Remember the IG bonus last year?

I think a 100-500 JUP bonus max. Bc you gotta remember: there is only 700m JUP + we have wayyyy more people to consider

2 Likes
12

Kind of… except now it’s all about stakers.
Stakers vs. Stakers
LMAO

2 Likes
13

What miuq said. They get more return because they have more jup. They shouldn’t get a larger staking percentage because they have more staked.

1 Like