Hello everyone,
I am opening this discussion to address concerns regarding the Jupuary first proposal, the core team (@meow & co), and the Jup token.
Jupuary first proposal:
The initial vote for Jupuary started on Monday, November 25th, 2024. By the second day, it became very clear that the vote wouldn’t pass: most whales would vote No while hundreds of thousands of small stakers would vote Yes. Feel free to attack me here if you want, it is perfectly normal for larger holders to refuse something that would dilute their stake.
The reasons wee obvious and had been previously discussed in both discord and on this forum weeks prior.
For those unaware, here are the primary factors that led to numerous “No” votes:
- The proposal description lacked precision and clarity: Despite being a yes/no question, many expressed concern that passing the vote would implement Jupuary without further voting on specific criteria.
- Token emission concerns: the proposed 700M token distribution to the public, with fears about dilution and bearish price impact.
- Meow’s essay: Many perceived it as insufficiently detailed, vague, with many feeling the end goal wasn’t effectively communicated.
- Stakers abandonment: this has become a significant issue! It’s problematic to attempt replacing existing stakers (“old money”) with new money (Jupuary). When potential new users observe old stakers leaving due to poor treatment (100m+ currently being staked as of writing), they will certainly follow suit next time around, creating an unsustainable cycle. Look, it has been shown that very successful startups typically establish a strong foundation with their foundation (here, stakers) before expanding their user base to new people.
It’s better to have 100 users love you than 1 million kinda like you --YCombinator : link1
The current unstaking metrics clearly indicate concerning foundational issues that appear to have been deliberately created.
All of these are creating a huge cascading of unstaking that is growing at an EXPONENTIAL rate (LINK), a negative sentiment around the jup token, a wtf moment for others,…
Core Team
While we certainly do acknowledge the team as industry leaders in product development and innovative feature deployment, many users have expressed concern that the team hasn’t prioritized the development of the JUP token and issues around the team communication on very important matters.
Key issues include:
- Need for tokenomics refinement
- Perception that the team prioritizes token price stability over appreciation
- Concerns about excessive idealism in decision-making
- The team tends to avoid token price discussion
- PR nightmares, statement misunderstanding, etc…
There is a reason every post in this forum has 50% of replies by NPCs following the same group thinking, its because they think you guys are going to pay them for their good work in Jupuary. And thats just wrong. -@fanatik0
Jup token
Recent market dynamics have shown JUP underperforming relative to SOL, despite their historical correlation! Some community members have highlighted several concerns:
- On chain is showing that over 100M JUP are currently being unstaked, with exponential growth in unstaking volumes
- The proposed 700M JUP injection into circulation could further impact market sentiment
- The current Annual Staking Rewards (ASR) barely offset existing inflation
- The proposed token burn of uncirculating supply may not effectively counter dilution effects
The price movement of JUP was closely following SOL until recently. Now JUP is underperforming SOL. And as said in the quote, there is more to come if the next proposal isn’t something what satisfies the stakers/voters. - @miuq
First off, JUP is already inflationary, and the ASR rewards we get now are just enough to balance that. This airdrop will dilute staking rewards because they’ll be spread across way more tokens. Staking is one of the main reasons people hold JUP, so if those rewards drop too much, it could hurt the system long-term.
Second, this idea that burning 30 percent of the supply that is uncirculating balances things out doesn’t hold up. The tokens being burned aren’t in circulation, so it won’t affect the price. It just makes the supply shock a bit smaller, but it’s still not bullish at all.
-@anonymousWhale
I think its smarter for Jupiter team to rather “bend over backwards” than see the sentiment and JUP getting destroyed due to big part of community abandoning the project, since holding and staking JUP doesn’t make sense. -@miuq
SUGGESTIONS / ADVICE
For the Core Team:
-
Diversify advisory input beyond Yes men voices:
We want the team to be surrounded by pragmatic people as much as Yes men. These two groups will clash ideas then once they find some common ground, the team will introduce that particular topic for voting. -
Establish an independent observatory committee: this can be established directly by picking up members within Discord, reddit etc…
-
Implement a PR review process for major announcements to prevent misunderstandings: find folks that express themselves clearly, get to the point within a few words.
For the Community:
-
Move beyond superficial discussion of community values: instead of only talking about togetherness, growing the pie, etc… let’s discuss how other projects have done so, adapt what has worked, add our secret sauce based on data.
-
Adopt a more data-driven, analytical approach: check on chain why stakers unstake (right now obviously because of jupuary), how to retain them, set a minimum bar for staking etc…
-
Acknowledge diverse investment objectives among stakeholders: not every one can hold a token for 2-3 years without selling. This is not a bear cycle. The team’s long-term commitment is known by many, but investors, stakers have varying time horizons and financial objectives that deserve respect and consideration.
-
Base our discussions on factual analysis rather than emotional responses: each user needs to learn to be more pragmatic.
For the Jup Token:
- Find more utilities, not just DAO. Ask us to public research, tell us what is feasible, what is not.
- Integrate Jup at every step of the Jupiterverse: from onboarding users onwards. The first token they should buy should be Jup + Sol (gas), not usdc, not usdt, etc…
My own recommendations on Jupuary for the team (I am a staker and a user of the platform):
- Make it happen during the bear market: you will see who is with you at the bottom of the tranches.
- Change the Jupuary model, we are not VC funded, we can make our own decisions, those who are calling the team names because Jupuary must happen, it WaS a ProMise! Please, ignore them.
- If you don’t want to change the model, add in heavy vesting, stick to your 75% penalty, stop back pedalling. Your hesitations are creating a cascading of issues.
- Jupuary converted to ASR to show every user outside the ecosystem that this DAO
Unless there can be guarantees that Jupuary contributes to governance, Jupuary should discontinue in favour of governance incentive programs such as Active Staking Rewards (ASR).
As of right now, ASR continues because of unclaimed $JUP from the original Jupuary. ASR needs more funding and for stakers to feel a sense of security in locking up their governance tokens without fear of dilution and financial loss.
The original Jupuary was a token generation event so no one was at risk of financial loss. It was also unexpected so there was no opportunity to farm.
Jupuary needs to go! It would be better to commit 700m $JUP to actual DAO participants — which, by the way, is available for anyone to participate for the price of 1 $JUP ($1.10) as of writing. --@matto
Please do abstain from commenting if that’s just to say “It’S BuLL rUN, thE airDroP WIll bE absoRbed iN nexT T0 No tIme, gRoWW CommunItY, WorrY leSS!”
I think once we address all of these issues / concerns, there won’t be a single community / team / token better than this.
