Response: Addressing $JUP’s Core Concerns and the Team’s Reply
Dear Jupiter Team and Community,
I appreciate the team’s attempt to respond in the “Truth About $JUP” post. However, as one of the concerned $JUP holders who raised these issues, I feel many core points were evaded or dismissed rather than fully addressed. The response’s tone – at times defensive and even flippant – has only deepened the community’s worries that our economic concerns are not being taken seriously. In the spirit of constructive dialogue, I want to revisit the key areas of concern with facts and clear questions. My goal isn’t to spread FUD, but to seek clarity and accountability on matters that directly impact $JUP holders’ confidence and financial well-being.
1. Financial Transparency and Use of Funds
One of the biggest unanswered questions is how much real money the team obtained from $JUP’s launch and operations, and where it’s going. The team’s reply stressed that Jupiter is “profitable enough to fund its own growth” and even noted pride in not relying on venture capital. That’s great – but show us the numbers.
Initial Token Launch Proceeds: We know 10 billion JUP were minted (50% team, 50% community)). At launch, ~138.6M JUP were sold via the LFG launch pool . Those sales generated significant fees/funds – enough that by March 2024 the team transferred $10M USDC (plus 100M JUP) to seed the Jupiter DAO treasury. This $10M came “from JUP launch trading fees and JUP revenue”, implying the launch and early platform fees yielded at least eight figures in USDC. How much in total was raised or earned? Beyond the $10M given to the DAO, how much did the team retain for its own “revenue-based treasury,” and how has it been allocated?
Ongoing Revenue and Treasury: The team stated that all acquisitions have been paid from revenue, not by selling tokens , and that team salaries/bonuses are paid in stablecoins. If Jupiter truly generates enough cash to cover operations, we should see that transparently. What portion of protocol fees (50% of which are for buybacks) have been accumulated? How much revenue has Jupiter earned in, say, 2024, and how was it split between buybacks vs. operational expenses? These figures were absent in the reply. It’s encouraging that the team claims profitability, but without concrete financial reporting, holders are asked to take it on faith.
Bottom line: The Jupiter community still lacks a clear accounting of the money behind $JUP. The transparency audits detail token movements, but not the fiat/USDC balances and spending. It’s crucial for trust to know how the team’s funds are being spent and how that benefits token holders (e.g. funding growth, liquidity, buybacks, etc.). The team touts actions like “voluntarily giving $10M USDC to the DAO” and not enriching themselves, so please back that with full transparency. Exactly how much capital has Jupiter secured, and how is it being allocated? Without this, investors are left guessing if the project is truly thriving financially or quietly bleeding cash.
2. Staking Utility – What’s the Point?
Many in the community (myself included) have been asking: What is the real purpose of staking JUP? The current answer appears to be governance rights and eligibility for Active Staking Rewards (ASR) – i.e., more JUP tokens. However, this raises two issues:
Governance-Only Value: Staking $JUP confers voting power (1 staked JUP = 1 vote in the DAO). Beyond having a say in proposals, there is no direct economic benefit tied to staking. Stakers do not earn a share of protocol fees or any guaranteed yield denominated in stable value. Unlike some platforms where staking yields revenue dividends or unlocks platform perks (e.g. fee discounts), Jupiter’s staking is purely about governance and token incentives. Even the team’s own documentation emphasizes that ASR was designed to reward active voters and not passive holders . That’s fine for engagement, but from an investor’s standpoint, governance alone doesn’t justify locking up tokens – especially when governance decisions thus far have often favored the team’s requests (more on that later).
Dilutive Rewards (ASR): The only “reward” for staking is receiving additional JUP through Active Staking Rewards. But where do those rewards come from? The community itself. In fact, the DAO voted in late 2024 to take 215M unclaimed airdrop tokens and use them for future ASR rewards (as opposed to burning them) . This passed with 69% support after strong encouragement from the team. So, if you stake and vote, you’ll get some fraction of these tokens back. This is essentially token recycling. Rather than creating new value, it shuffles existing supply from inactive holders to active ones. Yes, active stakers can maintain their relative share of the network by doing so – but it’s necessary just to keep up with dilution from constant token distributions. One community member observed that stakers needed a 50% increase in staked tokens just to offset the dilution from the Jupuary airdrop . In other words, if you don’t stake, your slice of the pie keeps shrinking as more JUP is handed out.
The team did not address staking utility at all in their reply, so let’s pose it directly: What is the endgame for JUP staking? Is it purely about governance participation for its own sake? Are there plans to tie staking to actual platform usage benefits (such as trading fee rebates, exclusive features, etc.) or real revenue sharing down the line? As it stands, many holders feel compelled to stake just to not get left behind in token holdings, but there is little evidence that this effort will translate into financial upside. In fact, despite a huge portion of supply being staked (over 378M JUP, ~28% of circulating, across hundreds of thousands of wallets) , JUP’s price still hit all-time lows during heavy distribution events. That suggests that staking + ASR alone is not shoring up confidence or value.
Key question: Beyond governance rights, what concrete utility will staking $JUP have to make it worthwhile? If the answer is “none, it’s just for governance,” then we need to be honest that JUP is effectively a governance-only token. In that case, investors expecting financial returns are in the wrong place – which the team should openly acknowledge, rather than marketing staking as if it’s a rewarding opportunity. On the other hand, if the team does intend for $JUP to capture more of Jupiter’s success (which most of us assumed it would), staking could be a prime vehicle for that – but we’ve yet to hear how. It’s time to discuss whether staking can be more than a loyalty program paid in inflationary tokens.
3. Token Value Drivers (or Lack Thereof)
The crux of any token investment is understanding what will drive its value up over time. This is where many of us are feeling disappointed. What are the credible mechanisms to increase $JUP’s price and demand? From all available information, the system seems designed to distribute JUP widely (which is inclusive) and compensate contributors in JUP – but not necessarily to create sustained market demand for the token. Let’s examine the known factors:
Protocol Revenue and Buybacks: Jupiter’s business generates fees (from its swap aggregator and related products). Half of those fees go to the project/team, and 50% are used for $JUP buybacks. This policy was highlighted during the Catstanbul 2025 event when the team announced it alongside the big token burn. It’s a positive that fee revenue is being used to support the token price via buybacks. However, what happens to those bought-back tokens? Initially it was said they’d be burned or locked for long-term. If they are burned, that’s effectively returning value to all holders by reducing supply. If they are just held in treasury, that’s less impactful (since they could be reintroduced later). Clarity here would help – are buybacks permanently removing tokens from circulation? And can the team provide data on how many JUP have been bought back to date with fees?
Token Burns and Supply Reductions: The team did execute a 3 billion JUP burn in January 2025, a huge 30% cut of the total supply . Notably, this burn included both team and community tokens, presumably to maintain fairness – e.g. 600M from the team’s own allocation, 150M from Mercurial stakeholder allotments, and portions of unused community reserves were all destroyed. This was a strong gesture and the market responded positively at the time (JUP’s price spiked ~40% on the news). It showed the team is willing to take action to enhance token value (in this case, by increasing scarcity). However, burns are a one-time fix unless accompanied by better ongoing balance. Even after cutting supply to 7B, the worry is that continuous emissions (through airdrops, rewards, new team grants) can outpace organic demand – putting us back in the same situation. Indeed, the large January airdrop (“Jupuary”) and other unlocks in Q1 2025 contributed to a ~75% drop in JUP’s price ) despite the burn. So while we applaud the willingness to adjust supply, we need to pair that with strategies on the demand side of the equation.
Utility of the Token: Aside from governance, does holding or using JUP confer any direct benefit within Jupiter’s ecosystem? Some documentation from exchanges described JUP as providing “platform benefits, such as trading fee discounts” , but to my knowledge no such discount exists yet. If it does, it hasn’t been communicated or noticeable. Integrating JUP for trading discounts or premium features on Jupiter would immediately give traders a reason to buy and hold the token (think of Binance’s BNB model). Is anything like this on the roadmap? If not, the token’s value is entirely speculative – driven by belief in future governance decisions or broader ecosystem growth, rather than current utility. That’s a precarious foundation for value.
Ecosystem Growth => Token Value? The team’s stance in the reply was essentially: focus on product and long-term growth, and token value will eventually follow. In their words, “we focus on long-term product development over short-term price… I’d argue this is what you want in a crypto team”. I do value long-termism – no one here wants a pump-and-dump. But there is a difference between not obsessing over short-term price and ignoring token economics altogether. The concern is that Jupiter could become a hugely successful platform with lots of usage, while the JUP token languishes because its supply/demand dynamics are mismanaged. If all the benefits of growth accrue to the business (user adoption, fees generated) but not to the token holders (because fees aren’t shared directly, and new tokens keep being handed out), then JUP holders effectively subsidize the growth without guaranteed participation in the upside. The team says the token is “ALL of our responsibility” – so what actions are being taken to make holding JUP economically attractive? Relying on general “confidence” from product success is not enough; there need to be explicit value capture mechanisms for the token.
In summary, the only significant price drivers for JUP so far have been: one-off events like burns, and the implicit boost from buybacks (which help but haven’t offset dilution fully). Meanwhile, persistent headwinds have been: massive airdrops, team/staff token allocations, and other unlocks that increase circulating supply. In fact, during H2 2024 and early 2025, monthly token unlocks and distributions outpaced buybacks by roughly 25:1 in volume , according to community analyses – an imbalance that inevitably pressures price downward. This is not a sustainable path to “number go up”.
Key questions: What new or improved token value drivers can we expect? Can the team commit to strengthening the tokenomics in favor of holders? For example, introducing real utility (fee rebates or premium access for JUP holders), increasing the buyback percentage, or even exploring revenue-sharing with stakers could all create organic demand. Absent such measures, many holders fear that JUP’s design is “to compensate everyone in JUP without creating sustainable market demand,” as I originally cautioned. The team’s response didn’t really assuage that fear – it mostly reiterated that dilution is minimal and for good causes. I challenge the team to go a step further and articulate how specifically JUP can appreciate in value as the ecosystem grows. If the prevailing attitude is that token price doesn’t matter in the short or medium term (“price is not our concern”), then why should investors continue to hold JUP at all? We need a better answer to that, grounded in tokenomics strategy, not just hope.
4. Active Staking Rewards (ASR) – Real ROI or Token Recycling?
The Active Staking Rewards program has been a double-edged sword. On one hand, it successfully galvanized a huge number of JUP holders to stake and vote – creating one of the most active DAO communities in crypto. On the other hand, its economic effectiveness is questionable, and even the community is split on its value. Are ASRs truly providing return on investment for participants, or just cycling tokens around in a way that could ultimately be zero-sum (or even negative-sum if it contributes to sell pressure)? Let’s review:
Purpose of ASR: The stated purpose, as per co-founder Meow, is to “create a really vibrant and virtuous cycle where committed $JUP voters gain increasing amounts of voting power” . In practice, this means if you actively vote on proposals, you get an extra allocation of JUP proportional to your stake. It’s essentially a loyalty reward paid in JUP. This certainly increases one’s voting power (since you accumulate more tokens), but it does not create external value – it’s not like you’re being paid in cash or a token that derives from revenue. It’s more like a dilution offset (as noted earlier).
Opportunity Cost – Burn vs Reward: The contentious October 2024 vote on what to do with 215M unclaimed tokens really underscored the community’s divide on ASR. 69% voted to continue ASR (using those tokens for rewards), but 31% voted to burn those tokens instead ). A large minority felt that reducing supply was a better way to reward holders (by boosting everyone’s token value) than handing out more rewards to the active ones. This was one of the most divisive votes in Jupiter’s history. The outcome means that rather than reducing supply (which likely would have helped price), we chose to distribute that 215M over the next year to voters. I was on the fence for that vote, because I do value active participation; however, it’s hard to ignore the argument that burning would have benefited all holders, including those who may not have the time or understanding to actively vote. The team strongly pushed for the ASR extension, which they have every right to do, but it does feel like prioritizing an engagement mechanism over straightforward value-per-token.
Sell Pressure and ROI: The critical question for an individual holder is: am I better off because of ASR? If you participated heavily and grew your stack, you may have a larger slice of the pie now – if you didn’t sell. But if the pie (market cap) shrank faster than your slice grew, you still lost value. From January to March 2025, $JUP’s price decline outpaced any staking rewards one could earn. For example, a 19% price drop occurred right after the Meow bonus vote ), and a ~75% drop over Q1 2025 was noted amid large token unlocks. No staking reward program can overcome drops of that magnitude; if anything, the looming claims of large ASR distributions can themselves create anticipation of selling. We need to consider if ASR is truly “worth it” for the token economy. It increases participation, yes – but at what cost to token value? The team’s reply did not touch on this at all (perhaps because the original post didn’t explicitly ask), but it’s a discussion we must have.
Personally, I’m not against rewards for active community members – they are the lifeblood of the DAO. But we should explore alternatives that don’t continually swell the circulating supply. For instance, could future rewards be paid in stablecoins or a portion of revenue (so that it’s real yield, not inflationary)? Or at least, can we calibrate the ASR amounts to be net neutral (e.g., fully offset by tokens bought back and burned from the market)? Right now, it feels like robbing Peter to pay Paul – taking from the unclaimed pool (or community reserve) to pay voters, instead of simply not creating those claims in the first place.
Key questions: What is the team’s measure of success for ASR? How will we know if the “virtuous cycle” is actually creating value (higher engagement and token stability) versus just masking dilution? If market confidence in JUP continues to erode, no amount of ASR will save it – people will stop staking if they expect the token to keep dropping. I urge the team and DAO to critically assess ASR’s effectiveness after this cycle. If the goal is long-term alignment, maybe locking rewards or lowering their magnitude could help. At minimum, we should acknowledge that ASR is not “free” – it’s paid by the community one way or another – and ensure that it’s delivering more than it’s costing.
5. The 50/50 Split and the March 10 Vote – Precedent and Perception
The March 10 “Meow 2030 Lock-in” vote is perhaps the most contentious governance decision to date. This was the vote that granted Meow (a co-founder) an extra 220M JUP from community reserves in exchange for him locking his entire 500M stack until 2030 . By passing this, the community effectively changed the foundational 50/50 allocation split of JUP (team vs community) to roughly 53% team / 47% community by 2030. I want to be very clear: I understand the intent – to incentivize a founder’s long-term commitment – but I and many others believe this broke the spirit of the original token distribution and set a worrying precedent.
The team’s response to our concern here was surprisingly blithe. It acknowledged the split change but said “why that generates ‘extreme concern’… is not clear to me” , arguing that since it was a DAO vote, the decision is legitimate and we should accept the outcome . While I respect the democratic process, this reply misses the point. Yes, the vote passed – but that doesn’t automatically erase the concerns about how and why it passed, and what it means going forward:
Erosion of a Core Principle: Jupiter’s tokenomics were sold to all of us on the premise of a fair 50/50 split – equal footing for team and community. This principle builds trust that neither side can dominate the project unilaterally. The March 10 proposal explicitly shifted value from the community to a team member . Even if the percentage change (3% of supply) seems small, in absolute terms it’s huge (220M JUP). As one community reply in the forum noted, “that 6% differential still accounts for like 420 million tokens. That’s not a small amount.” It’s disingenuous to act as if this is no big deal. The long-term fairness of the tokenomics does get called into question: if we broke the 50/50 rule once to favor the team, what stops us from doing 60/40 later “for the greater good”? A precedent has been set that insider incentives can override the original terms, if packaged as a “DAO vote”.
Community Understanding of the Vote: I have serious concerns that many voters did not fully grasp the trade-offs in that proposal. The voting options were arguably framed in a way that emphasized the positive (Meow locks tokens longer, yay!) and downplayed the cost (community gives up 220M, breaking 50/50). In the forum discussion, even strong supporters of the project were torn. Some explicitly said they love Meow but “if we are sticking to the 50-50 rule we need that community reserve to be used for community needs… not… at the community’s growth expense”. Others pointed out that a “No” vote wouldn’t stop new hires or kill the project – it would just mean the 280M for hires comes from the team’s own allocation (as originally planned) instead of Meow fronting it for a bonus I suspect a good chunk of voters believed a “No” might harm the project (i.e., no tokens for new hires) without realizing the team had other means to fund hiring. This perceived lack of alternative likely skewed the vote in favor of Yes. The large holder post-mortem noted “unclear voting options and a rushed decision process” , and that some felt forced into approval due to no clear alternative proposal That is not the healthiest way to make a major tokenomic change.
Market Reaction: The aftermath speaks volumes. JUP’s price fell ~19% immediately after the vote. This indicates that outside observers and possibly many token holders were alarmed by the decision. It cast doubt on Jupiter’s governance: instead of celebrating a founder’s commitment, the narrative became “founder rewards himself with community tokens.” True or not, that sentiment hurt confidence. The team’s response in the post didn’t address this optics issue at all – they simply said “even if we (the team) disagree with the decision, we respect the DAO’s mandate” . The irony is, the proposal was put forth by the team itself. So it comes off as, “Well, you all voted for it, so don’t complain.” But many of us are complaining – about how we got to that vote in the first place.
Going forward, we need to ask: What are the implications of breaking the 50/50 split, and how will the team handle similar situations in the future? I urge the team to consider the following:
Rebuilding Trust: Acknowledge that this was an extraordinary request and assure us it won’t become a habit. The community needs confidence that “community funds” mean something, and won’t be tapped for insider bonuses again unless there’s overwhelming justification and understanding.
Better Governance Process: If a proposal materially shifts token distribution, provide clear pro/con analyses (beyond just the forum debates) and perhaps multiple options. For example, an option for “Team funds new hires from existing allocation, no bonus” should have been explicit. In traditional companies, something as serious as changing equity splits would involve extensive discussion – DAO votes should be held to a similar standard of clarity.
Respecting the Spirit of Votes: Yes, the DAO decided – but a narrow decision (if it was indeed narrow) on a complex issue isn’t a resounding mandate. If 49% voted No (hypothetically), that’s a deeply split community. The team shouldn’t take that as a blank check. It requires listening to dissenting voices and perhaps making concessions to address their concerns. One idea: commit that the effective team vs community split will never go below a certain threshold (say, 50/50 in spirit even if not in pure token count). Right now it’s slated to be 53/47; can we promise not to widen it further? Some reassurance here would help mitigate the fear that community’s stake will continue to be diluted in favor of insiders.
In summary, the March 10 vote did signal confusion and concern among holders, contrary to the team’s implication that it’s a non-issue. The onus is on the team and the DAO to ensure our governance process remains fair and that original promises (like balanced token distribution) are honored or changed only with full transparency and consensus, not just a bare majority from a rushed vote.
6. Governance and Team Obligations to Holders
Finally, we need to address the philosophical question: What obligations does the Jupiter team have toward $JUP token holders? And conversely, what is the role of the community in this project’s success? The team’s response suggested a view that everyone shares responsibility for the token and that decentralization means the team is not solely accountable ([Truth about $JUP (. While it’s true that a community-run project spreads responsibility, we cannot ignore that the core team holds immense influence and has far more information and power to affect outcomes than the average holder.
In traditional finance, company executives have a fiduciary duty to shareholders – they are obliged (within legal bounds) to act in shareholders’ best interests, which usually means driving value. In crypto, such legal duties are murky, and many teams explicitly avoid saying the token is an “investment” to steer clear of regulatory issues. I suspect that’s partly why the team emphasizes product > price; they don’t want to promise token value growth (which could be construed as a securities thing). However, from a moral and practical standpoint, the team did create a token and distribute it to a community, thereby instilling an expectation that token holders are partners in the journey and will share in the success of Jupiter. Dismissing token price concerns by saying “the token unites us but also places responsibility on all of us” can come across as abdicating responsibility. It’s basically, “if the token underperforms, well, that’s on you guys too.” That’s not how most of us felt when we decided to invest our time, effort, and money into $JUP.
Let’s recall some of the team’s actions that were meant to align interests:
The team gave up 50% of protocol revenue to the DAO (for buybacks, etc.) – a noble move indeed . They also burned a large portion of their own tokens (nearly 30% of the team’s allocation) in the 3B burn . These are concrete steps that showed commitment to the community. They even locked team tokens and required advance notice for any liquidity events . All good things.
On the flip side, when a community member wrote “it feels like the team only focuses on making money for themselves,” the response was indignant: “Incredibly false… You’d have to be genuinely awful at self-enrichment to [do what we did]”. I understand the frustration – the team has done a lot that a greedy team wouldn’t do, and the other way around. Yet, from a holder’s perspective, it’s hard to square “we’re not enriching ourselves” with the fact that the team and insiders still control huge amounts of tokens and have significant latitude to reward themselves, as evidenced by the Meow bonus vote. Yes, no one is cashing out yachts worth of USDC (since there was no big VC sale), but insiders’ token allocations will eventually translate to personal wealth if Jupiter succeeds. That’s fine – they deserve to profit from building a great product. But so do token holders who believed in that vision. We want to see the team equally eager to enrich the community alongside themselves, not as an afterthought or only if it aligns with long-term plans.
At times, the tone of the reply felt like the team is a bit resentful that we expect them to care about the token price. The rhetorical question “Did the team have to give up 50% of all protocol revenues??” – no, and we’re thankful. “Should we steal their hardware wallets and put them on boats?” – obviously not, no one suggested confiscating team tokens. These responses, while perhaps tongue-in-cheek, skirt the legitimate underlying concern: How will the team balance its freedom to operate with its duty to protect holder interests? Right now, token holders’ only recourse is governance (which the team largely guides) or selling the token. We don’t have legal rights, but we do have the power of the community voice and vote. The team should welcome hard questions from us without labeling them “FUD” to be fought. Healthy skepticism and accountability are what keep a project strong and fair.
Key questions: Does the team view increasing $JUP’s value as part of its mandate or not? If not in the short term, what about the long term? How does the team plan to reward the community for their contributions (which range from providing liquidity, evangelizing Jupiter, testing products, to governance itself)? Thus far, the rewards have been mostly in JUP tokens – which, if not managed well, can lose value and leave those contributors holding the bag. It’s crucial for the team to articulate that they do care about holder outcomes. Not via hype or empty promises, but via strategies and clear communication. For instance, if major unlocks are coming in 2026, maybe the team can proactively discuss voluntary lock-up extensions or selling plans that won’t shock the market. (Right now the attitude seemed to be “we won’t plan 5 years ahead, unlocks are small, deal with it”
The community’s role, beyond testing and feedback, should be as co-owners of this ecosystem. We want to feel like owners, not just users. The DAO structure is supposed to enable that, but if every tough question is met with defensiveness or platitudes, it undermines the very principle of decentralization. The community isn’t here to just cheerlead and rubber stamp – we’re here to ensure Jupiter’s success benefits everyone, not just the cats in charge.
Conclusion: A Call for Clarity and Collaboration
I write this response not to attack the team, but out of a deep desire to see Jupiter succeed in the right way. The team’s “Truth About $JUP” post attempted to address concerns, but in truth it left many of us feeling that our worries were swept under the rug or dismissed as misguided. Yes, some FUD exists out there, but legitimate questions are not FUD. We crave honest, detailed dialogue about these economic issues.
To move forward constructively, here’s what I (and many holders) would like to see:
Open the Books (to an extent): Provide a more detailed financial update – how much revenue, how much in reserves (USDC and JUP), runway for operations, etc. You need not reveal salaries or anything sensitive, but high-level transparency would quell a lot of speculation. The community shouldn’t have to play detective to figure out if Jupiter can fund itself without dilution – show us.
Revisit Token Strategy: Engage the community in a discussion about JUP’s utility and value capture. For example, hold a forum brainstorming session or a governance proposal on ways to improve tokenomics (fee discounts? higher buyback %, alternative reward mechanisms?). Empower a tokenomics workgroup to propose enhancements. We want to help make $JUP stronger.
Commit to Fair Governance: Acknowledge the concerns around the 50/50 split change and perhaps commit that any future proposals of that nature will be handled with greater care (longer discussion periods, clearer choices). Even consider a safeguard that core tokenomic principles won’t be changed without a supermajority or multiple vote rounds. Show the community that the balance of power is still fundamentally in their hands – because right now, many feel that was undermined.
Recognize Community Value: The community isn’t just an amorphous crowd; it’s thousands of individuals who have given Jupiter its status. Treating tough questions with respect (not irritation) will go a long way. The reply post did end on a collaborative note – “If you see problems, suggest solutions” – and that is exactly what I hope to do here. We are suggesting solutions by highlighting problems. We ask the team to listen without defensiveness and work with us on these issues.
In closing, I remain a passionate believer in Jupiter’s vision. The product is fantastic, the team is clearly talented and hardworking, and the community is one of the most active out there. These are all tremendous assets. By addressing the economic and governance concerns outlined above, Jupiter can set an example for how to align a successful DeFi product with a thriving token ecosystem. Let’s not shy away from these hard conversations. I invite the team to respond to these points not with anger or dismissal, but with the same candidness and long-term mindset that they apply to product development.
Our interests can be aligned – let’s make sure they actually are. The truth about $JUP should be that both the project and the token holders prosper together, through transparency, utility, and mutual respect. I hope this response can be a step in that direction.
— A concerned (but hopeful) JUP holder - ihateoranges