Proposing a model that would reduce the immediate penalty for claiming tokens early.
Rather than an outright 75% penalty on an immediate claim, I suggest splitting it into a 50% immediate claim (with no or lower penalty) and automatically staking the other 50% to an ASR (Active-Staking Reward) with a set vesting period. This would let users access some liquidity while still supporting the longer-term staking goals of the jupiverse.
In the long run, this model could address a few challenges:
Encouragement to Stake, Not Force: Instead of the heavy penalty feeling like a forced hold, the 50-50 split could make staking more palatable. It’s a middle ground that lets users partially liquidate but keeps a portion in the ecosystem, which can still be beneficial for network security or rewards
accrual, and onboarding more people into ASR program.
Mitigating Sell Pressure: The current 75% penalty might incentivize people to just hold and claim everything at the end of the vesting period, potentially causing a large sell-off. A 50-50 model could smooth this by allowing a steadier trickle of tokens into circulation.
Predictability of Rewards: If people are less likely to be put off by a strict penalty and feel more in control of their rewards, it could foster more trust in the staking and vesting structure over time.
Flexible Liquidity: Giving users partial liquidity options without waiting the full vesting period might keep engagement up, rather than users losing interest if they feel locked out for too long.
Conclusion
Ultimately, finding the balance between maintaining network integrity through staking and avoiding disincentives to early participants is key. A 50-50 split might offer more flexibility without heavily impacting the intended long-term benefits of the current staking and penalty structure.
Likely but let 50% be accessible while claiming immediately and the rest 50% should be auto stake for ASR program with vesting for 9 months to a year cliff.
These ideas how can u choose and make plans with others money. Now I understand where yr coming from but my opinion it’s awful solution unless u implement some sort of loan which is awful even because the. You will implement some sort of repercussion interest to benefit jup. It’s all to benefit jup what about the people who trust you with there stakes you wanna lose all of yr stalkers keep it up.
Looking from the principle of everyone will commit to a year cliff what will happened after everyone one decides to lock whole year and majority later sell off after a year cliff, the 50% release initial will relief the sell pressure at the end of the cliff while the 50% lock and vesting we help in ASR program and long term plans. We know is a gift with zero expectations but more jup needs to be release into circulation.
What if the “penalty” instead was treated as a bonus.
Ex. you get 25% for sure, and 75% as a bonus if you choose to stake/hold.
Encouragement to Stake, Not Force: Instead of the heavy penalty feeling like a forced hold, the 50-50 split could make staking more palatable. It’s a middle ground that lets users partially liquidate but keeps a portion in the ecosystem, which can still be beneficial for network security or rewards
accrual, and onboarding more people into ASR program.
The token distribution is all about expanding the DAO and DAO participants. The intention for this “gift” is not for people to ex. liquidate for fiat or something.
Therefore while I agree with the idea of funneling tokens to ASR, it all would have to be anchored in the intention behind the jupuary distribution.
To me, 50/50 is not ideal, I really like the 25/75 approach. Because it serves as a great balance between those who are here for short term gains and those who are here for the Jupiverse (and DAO-) success.
Mitigating Sell Pressure: The current 75% penalty might incentivize people to just hold and claim everything at the end of the vesting period, potentially causing a large sell-off. A 50-50 model could smooth this by allowing a steadier trickle of tokens into circulation.
While I understand the caution around “postponing”, but I do expect large swaths of vested tokens, as you put it, would be converted to DAO participants not focused on selling their tokens later on. I think also, focusing on mitigating people dumping their tokens puts the basis of the conversation on token price instead of expanding the jupiverse
Predictability of Rewards: If people are less likely to be put off by a strict penalty and feel more in control of their rewards, it could foster more trust in the staking and vesting structure over time.
What if the “penalty” instead was treated as a “bonus”. I think ultimately people would have full control of their JUP gift. It would be up to each individual on how they chose to treat it with the circumstances in mind
Flexible Liquidity: Giving users partial liquidity options without waiting the full vesting period might keep engagement up, rather than users losing interest if they feel locked out for too long.
I think the opposite would be the effect here. Vested tokens means people are during the vesting period more engaged with the DAO and care more about whats going on with the DAO, JUP and the Jupiverse.
I really enjoyed your contribution thanks for the comprehensive feedback but in terms of 25% and 75% penalty it means users will have access to 100% allocations if users claim immediately the user will loss access to 75% which will go back to gift pool many users will not even read the disclaimer before claiming the allocation and what will happen to 75% that goes back to gift pool it will become another topic again. If 90 % decides to wait after vesting what will eventually happen to majority of users ? many will still sell because they have being holding for a year already and we might be approaching bear season let take a looks at sanctum approach 50% was accessible to day one claimers, majority already sold off while the real support still waiting for 6 month cliffs, the cloud is booming presently even after all jeepter left the scene.
Well understood but some users may still think they are force to engage because of vesting, during early ASR it’s a choice to engage though I guess even the vesting will come with 24hours release some portion gradually with a year cliff.
Thanks for your views. I like that you didn’t just attack the problem but proffered a solution however I agree with the 75% penalty. Now more than ever, we have to keep $Jup in the hands of the real community members which is to grow the pie. Whoever can’t rely on the ASRs isnt committed enough to the community. We can’t be distracted by pressure of price reduction. If for some reason you need to, you can but just a smaller gift but a gift all the same.
