A Large Holder’s Concerns: Sustainability, Dilution, and the March 10 Vote
TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Read)
- I am a large JUP holder and a strong believer in the project’s vision, but the recent governance vote and team decisions make me question JUP’s long-term financial sustainability.
- The March 10 vote granted Meow a 220M JUP bonus from community reserves, even though team funds were supposed to be separate.
- Jupiter’s heavy reliance on token dilution (instead of self-sustaining revenue) to fund expansion devalues long-term holders’ investments.
- There have been indications from various discussions and community interactions that the team prioritizes long-term product development over short-term price movements. While this focus on sustainability is understandable, it raises a serious issue: Does the team believe financial benefit to investors and holders is not their responsibility?
- Future unlocks (2026 & 2030) may lead to massive sell-offs, and there is no clear plan to prevent price crashes.
- I am posting this to ask the team directly to address these concerns, and for the community to be aware of what’s happening.
Why I’m Concerned as a JUP Holder
I have been a strong believer in Jupiter, holding a significant amount of JUP tokens as my investment in the project. I fully supported the idea of building the best decentralized liquidity product and community. However, the recent governance decisions, financial strategy, and team behavior are making me lose confidence in JUP’s long-term success.
The most alarming red flag is how the team continues to rely on community funds for growth, instead of making Jupiter self-sustaining. This became clear with the March 10 “Meow 2030 Lock-In” vote:
- The March 10 Vote: A Bonus from Community Funds?
Originally, Jupiter was designed so that 50% of JUP tokens belong to the team, and 50% belong to the community. This was meant to ensure fairness: the team funds itself, and the community controls its own funds.
However, Meow proposed that instead of using team funds, he would front the 280M JUP required for new team hires, but in exchange, he wanted a 220M JUP bonus from community reserves. This shifts value from the community to the team, breaking the spirit of the 50/50 split.
The vote passed, but many holders (myself included) are extremely concerned about what this means for the long-term fairness of Jupiter’s tokenomics.
- Jupiter’s Business Model Seems Unsustainable
Jupiter is a high-volume trading platform, processing billions in transactions daily. However, despite this, it seems the business cannot sustain itself without continually issuing more tokens.
- The team burns tokens on one hand, but continuously issues new ones on the other.
- Jupiter’s fees are not covering team expansion, so they rely on token dilution.
- Team salaries and bonuses are paid in JUP, which means more sell pressure when those tokens unlock.
This raises a fundamental question: Why isn’t Jupiter profitable enough to fund its own growth?
- “Price is Not Our Concern” – What Does That Mean for Investors?
The Jupiter team has said multiple times that they don’t care about price movements. While I understand the focus on long-term value creation, I can’t help but interpret this statement as:
“The financial benefit of those who bought JUP tokens and supported our vision is not our concern.”
Jupiter is in the money-making business, but it feels like the team only focuses on making money for themselves, even if that means diluting the financial upside of their investors. If the team truly does not care about price, why should investors continue to hold JUP?
- Future Unlocks: Is There a Plan to Prevent Sell-Offs?
In 2026, a large number of team and investor tokens unlock. If there is no strategy to manage these unlocks, we could see a huge price drop.
- Will the team sell tokens into USDT/USDC?
- Will unlocks be managed in a way that prevents a market dump?
- Is there a plan to balance buybacks and unlocks to protect long-term holders?
The community deserves transparency on how these events will be handled.
My Questions to the Team
I am posting this publicly to demand answers from the Jupiter team and to make sure the community understands what is happening.
- Why did Meow take 220M JUP from community funds instead of team funds? Isn’t this breaking the 50/50 allocation principle?
- Why does the team rely on token dilution instead of making Jupiter self-sustainable through revenue?
- How does the team justify saying “price is not our concern” while long-term investors suffer dilution?
- What concrete plans are in place to prevent mass sell-offs when 2026 unlocks begin?
- If team members decide to sell their unlocked tokens, how will that affect market confidence?
These are serious concerns that need to be addressed. I hope this post sparks meaningful discussion among the community and that the team takes responsibility for providing clear answers. Jupiter’s long-term success depends on the confidence of its investors, not just the internal team.
I look forward to the responses. Let’s discuss.
Jupiter’s Financial Sustainability and the March 10 “Meow 2030” Vote
Sustainability of Jupiter’s Business Model
Jupiter’s growth strategy raises concerns about long-term financial sustainability. Despite handling $3.2B+ daily trading volumes by February 2025, its ability to convert that volume into stable revenue is unclear. Weekly fee earnings dropped from $42M in January to $20M as market hype faded. This volatility suggests that Jupiter’s income is tied to market cycles rather than stable revenue streams.
Token-Funded Expansion: Jupiter relies heavily on token issuance for funding. The team allocated 280M JUP (vesting over 3–4 years) to ~65 new hires as performance bonuses, equating to $60,000 per month per hire in tokens. This practice dilutes existing holders and creates selling pressure when recipients cash out. Monthly token unlocks have outpaced buybacks by about 25:1, raising concerns about excessive dilution. While 50% of protocol fees are used for JUP buybacks, the scale of new token grants outweighs these efforts.
Insufficient Use of Actual Revenue: Jupiter’s protocol generates revenue, but the team predominantly funds salaries with token grants instead of cashflow. Community members argue that revenue should cover operational costs rather than relying on continued token issuance. If unlocks continue exceeding buybacks, the increasing supply could depress JUP’s price, weakening stakeholder confidence.
The 50-50 Team-Community Token Split – Is It Holding Up?
Jupiter’s tokenomics were structured around a 50/50 split between the team and the community. The team’s 50% was designated for salaries, liquidity provision, and future hires, while the community’s 50% was for airdrops and ecosystem incentives. However, governance decisions and token allocations suggest this balance may be shifting in favor of the team.
Community Bearing the Burden: The DAO previously approved $7M in treasury spending to pay just four team members’ salaries, causing backlash. Additionally, the Meow 2030 vote reallocated 220M JUP from the community reserve to Meow in exchange for locking his tokens until 2030. This effectively reduced the community’s share while benefiting a team member.
Perception of Imbalance: Community members argue that insiders receive generous token packages while average holders face dilution. Staked JUP still reached all-time lows despite high staking participation, furthering concerns about sustainability. Jupiter’s leadership justifies its allocations by emphasizing the need to compete with tech giants on talent compensation.
Implications of the March 10 Vote (Meow’s 280M Front + 220M Bonus)
The DAO narrowly approved the Meow 2030 Lock-In, granting Meow an additional 220M JUP while he fronted 280M JUP for new hires. His entire 500M JUP is now locked until 2030. While this aligns his incentives with long-term project success, concerns remain about increased centralization and a precedent for future token reallocations to team members.
Market Reaction & Controversy: JUP’s price fell ~19% post-vote, with governance concerns amplifying fears of excessive insider compensation. Community frustration stemmed from unclear voting options and a rushed decision process. Some members felt forced into approval due to a lack of alternative proposals.
Unlocking and Selling Risks (June 2026 and Beyond)
Jupiter faces substantial vesting unlocks in 2026, raising concerns about their impact on price stability:
- Founder & Team Unlocks: Original allocations (before Meow’s extension) will fully vest by mid-2026.
- New Team Tokens (280M JUP): Vesting over 3–4 years, potentially introducing continuous selling pressure.
- Community Airdrops: The final large airdrop in January 2026 may cause additional sell-offs.
- Community Reserve (700M JUP): Under DAO control but could be allocated or sold for operational funding.
Stablecoin Conversion Concerns: While no official sale plan exists, large unlocks often lead to selling pressure. In anticipation of past unlocks, over 80M JUP was unstaked for potential sale, exacerbating price declines. If large holders convert JUP to USDT in 2026, it could trigger further downward momentum.
Price Impact and Market Effects of Large Token Unlocks
JUP’s price fell ~75% in Q1 2025, largely due to 700M JUP airdrop unlocks and governance concerns. Market participants closely track token unlock schedules and governance decisions, often preemptively selling to avoid dilution effects.
Stake Unstaking & Market Absorption Capacity: The JUP unstaking wave before the March 2025 vote highlights market sensitivity to unlock events. While Jupiter’s buyback program (50% of protocol fees) provides some support, unlock events could still outpace buybacks, leading to persistent price pressure.
Conclusion & Key Questions for the Community
Jupiter must address concerns about sustainability, token distribution fairness, and governance transparency to maintain community trust. Key considerations include:
- Revenue vs. Token Dilution: Can Jupiter shift toward a self-sustaining revenue model instead of relying on token incentives?
- Team vs. Community Allocation: Will future governance votes ensure that team costs aren’t unfairly passed onto community reserves?
- Governance Process Improvement: Should DAO voting structures allow for alternative proposals before major token allocations?
- Unlock Management & Selling Plans: Will team members commit to staggered sales or lock-up extensions beyond 2026?
- Mitigating Market Impact: Can buyback programs, staking incentives, or liquidity strategies reduce token unlock risks?
Jupiter has demonstrated transparency in governance, but recent controversies highlight the need for more structured community involvement. Addressing these concerns proactively will determine whether Jupiter can balance growth with fair token management, ensuring long-term value for both team members and the broader community.