DAO Proposal: Reward Long-Term Stakers & Build Real Yield

Proposals
21

Hello @Workwithnature,

Really appreciate your input ! :folded_hands:

Yes, this proposal is all about delivering real and sustainable value to $JUP holders. The idea is to go beyond ā€œyield for yieldā€™s sakeā€ and build a future where staking means impact, sustainability, and true community alignment. :globe_showing_europe_africa:

As it stands, those ASR rewards are being funded in part by the ongoing airdrop of JUP, which is great for now, but that source wonā€™t last forever. Eventually, the airdropped supply will run out, and it makes sense to start thinking about sustainable models for long-term ASR funding.

:counterclockwise_arrows_button: On the sustainability of ASR rewards

Totally agree, the airdrop wonā€™t last forever.

Thatā€™s why the proposal already includes a model for stable USD rewards, funded by:

  • A fixed % of Jupiter protocol fees,
  • Stored in a treasury wallet or stable vault,
  • Distributed based on: staked amount + duration + loyalty score.

This creates stable yield without needing to sell $JUP, reducing sell pressure and supporting long-term value.

Another idea Iā€™ve been mulling over is leveraging the staked JUP tokens in a way that avoids adding sell pressure. What if a portion of those staked tokens could be lent out to lending/borrowing platforms that support JUP as collateral or an asset? There are protocols out there already built for this purpose, and if Jupiter partnered with one or created its own lending mechanism, it could generate yields.

:light_bulb: On lending out staked $JUP

Interesting idea, but it comes with serious risks.

If we lend $JUP to external platforms and something goes wrong (hacks, liquidity issuesā€¦), it could cause a domino effect, and thatā€™s a big risk for trust in the whole network.

Thatā€™s why the focus here is on building sustainable mechanisms inside the Jupiter network, governed by the DAO.

A lot of Jup seems to be sitting idly in an escrow account from what I can tell, because all that Jup staked or at least part of it, is simply gathering dust. Correct me if Iā€™m wrong here.

:money_bag: On ā€œidleā€ tokens

Agreed, a lot of $JUP is just sitting there.

This proposal aims to put that stake to work through:

  • Logarithmic voting power (rewarding long-term belief without centralizing),
  • Layered ASR rewards with optional social impact bonuses,
  • Real USD yield from internal fees (no need to touch staked $JUP).

In short:
The goal is to move towards a self-sustaining, community-aligned system that supports both holders and the broader purpose of Jupiter, also with sustainable incentives with social impact.
And of course, this is open for feedback!

@Rodrigues770471

1 Like
22

@Rodrigues770471
Definitely great news that the staked JUP is sitting in an escrow account. That alone shows a really strong level of trust and integrity, which is honestly rare. But at the same time, itā€™s a bit of a shame, because naturally you want to be careful about partnering with platforms that could create issues down the lineā€”like, worst case, where funds might be lost or mishandled. Thatā€™s why I was thinking, maybe thereā€™s potential for JUP to develop its own lending/borrowing platform at some point.

Of course, I realized afterward that lending out staked JUP has its own downsideā€”namely that borrowers will likely sell it, which introduces sell pressure. And thatā€™s not ideal. But I do wonder if thereā€™s a smarter, more creative solutionā€”maybe someone in the community has a way to put that staked JUP to work in a way that actually generates revenue without that downside. If a path like that exists, it feels like something worth exploring. As in people who have a lot more experience on this than me surely could get creative on this.

Also, Iā€™m still really interested in hearing your thoughts on the other comment I leftā€”especially around the math.

Iā€™d genuinely love to understand it better and keep that conversation going. I really think what youā€™re working on and proposing here is a positive step in the right direction. Fairness is at the core of it, but I also get that for some people itā€™s tough to give up voting power, especially when theyā€™ve made serious financial commitments.

That said, at the heart of it, this is about building trust and pushing the DAO toward a place where itā€™s so clearly decentralized that no one could reasonably question it. Because, in my view, that perception of decentralizationā€”or lack of itā€”probably has more impact on JUPā€™s long-term value than anything else.

Really looking forward to continuing the discussion on both fronts.

1 Like
23

Do you mean something along this line. The more voting power someone wants, the exponentially more tokens they must stake.
For example:
ā€¢ 1 vote = 1 JUP
ā€¢ 4 votes = 4Ā² = 16 JUP
ā€¢ 10 votes = 10Ā² = 100 JUP
This makes it much more expensive to dominate governance, while still giving influence to larger holders?

Also

1 vote = 1 JUP

2 votes = 4 JUP

3 votes = 9 JUP

4 votes = 16 JUP

5 votes = 25 JUP

6 votes = 36 JUP

7 votes = 49 JUP

8 votes = 64 JUP

9 votes = 81 JUP

10 votes = 100 JUP

20 votes = 400 JUP

50 votes = 2,500 JUP

100 votes = 10,000 JUP
This gives an attitude of utility to the token as your exponential cost per vote increases.

Just sharing ideas here and asking questions for comprehensions sake, without or rather trying to be careful not to knock your proposals as ideas donā€™t have to be mutually exclusive.

1 Like
24

DAO Proposal: Reward Long-Term Stakers & Build Real Yield

Update V.1.1*

Hello Jupiter community & Jupiter Team! :waving_hand:

I would like to submit this draft proposal for your consideration, both from the community and the Jupiter core team.

This is one more version, open to feedback and improvement.

Proposal Intro: Sustainable Staking with Real Impact

This proposal goes beyond simple yield, itā€™s about real value, long-term sustainability, and social impact for the $JUP ecosystem.

Itā€™s designed to:

  • Reward long-term stakers with USD-based yield (from protocol fees, not airdrops, long-term sustainability)
  • Boost staking retention and network security
  • Offer bonus rewards for supporting social good
  • Ensure less sell pressure on $JUP
  • Promote fair, scalable governance through a time-weighted voting model
  • And most of all, drive community alignment and empowerment

This strategy replaces traditional token burns with direct funding for projects that benefit society, ensuring long-term sustainability, increased adoption, and real-world utility.

Instead of destroying value, we redirect it into the ecosystem and into meaningful causes ā€” creating a future where staking actually means something.

Long-Term Commitment = Fair, Scalable Voting Power

Governance should be shaped by those who believe in the long-term vision of Jupiter ā€” but without centralizing influence.

Instead of fixed percentage boosts, this proposal suggests a logarithmic model for voting power based on stake size and time committed.

Voting Power: Math Behind the Hybrid Model

This model balances stake size and loyalty over time to create a fair, scalable governance structure for the Jupiter DAO.

:abacus: Formula

voting_power = log10(stake_amount) * time_multiplier

  • log10(stake_amount) compresses the advantage of large token holders.
  • time_multiplier rewards how long a user has staked without unstaking.

:brain: Why Use a Logarithmic Scale?

Stake ($JUP) Linear Power log10(stake)
100 100 2
1,000 1,000 3
10,000 10,000 4
100,000 100,000 5
  • Diminishing returns for large holders
  • Encourages participation from smaller stakers
  • Prevents governance centralization

:hourglass_not_done: Time-Based Loyalty Boosts

Duration Without Unstaking Time Multiplier
3 Months 1.05
6 Months 1.15
12 Months 1.30
24 Months 1.50
  • The longer you stake without unstaking, the more governance weight you gain.
  • Encourages DAO alignment and protocol trust.

:bar_chart: Combined Power Example

User Stake Duration Multiplier log10(Stake) Voting Power
Alice 1,000 12 mo 1.30 3.00 3.90
Bob 100,000 3 mo 1.05 5.00 5.25

Even though Bob staked 100Ɨ more tokens, his voting power is only ~35% higher because Alice stayed committed longer.

If Alice staked for 24 months:

Voting Power = 3.00 Ɨ 1.50 = 4.50

She now gets even closer in governance weight, showing how time balances size.

Why This Works

  • Fair to small stakers
  • Rewards long-term commitment
  • Discourages whale dominance
  • Promotes sustainable, dynamic governance

Fair, inclusive, and scalable ā€” encouraging commitment without centralization.

Staking Rewards With Social Impact

Rewarding both financial loyalty and social good:

:date: Staking Period :money_with_wings: Base ASR :wrapped_gift: Bonus
3 Months 5% +1% if donating to impact causes
6 Months 8% +2% + NFT reward
12 Months 12% +4% + extra voting power
24 Months 15% +6% + VIP perks & governance boost

Letā€™s incentivize staking with purpose, not just profit.

:dollar_banknote: Real USD Rewards (Without Selling $JUP)

To reduce the need to sell JUP for liquidity, this proposal includes a USD-based passive income stream:

:white_check_mark: Funded by:

  • A fixed % of Jupiter protocol fees
  • Stored in a treasury wallet or stable vault

:white_check_mark: Distributed based on:

  • Amount staked
  • Duration without unstaking
  • Loyalty score

This allows long-term stakers to:

  • Access a stable yield
  • Maintain their JUP position
  • Contribute to ecosystem strength

:glowing_star: Benefits to the DAO

  • :brain: More engaged, long-term governance participants
  • :locked_with_key: Higher staking retention = greater security
  • :globe_showing_europe_africa: Sustainable incentives with social impact
  • :money_with_wings: Less JUP sell pressure through USD rewards
  • :purple_heart: Community empowerment & alignment

:hammer_and_wrench: Letā€™s Build It Together

This is a second draft.

I welcome all thoughts, suggestions, or improvements from the community and the Jupiter team.

Letā€™s co-create a future where staking means more than yield.

P.S. tagging a few great minds for input: @meow @Kash @0xSoju @9yointern :raising_hands:

Thanks to all,
@Rodrigues770471

1 Like
25

Comparative Governance Models: Exponential vs Logarithmic + Time

Both models aim to protect governance from centralization, but take different approaches.

Model A: Exponential Voting Power

  • Formula: Votes = sqrt(JUP staked)
  • Heavily penalizes large holders from gaining too much power.
  • Good for protecting against whales, but may discourage mid-sized committed stakers.

Model B: Logarithmic Voting Power * Time Multiplier

  • Formula: Votes = log10(JUP staked) Ɨ time_multiplier
  • Encourages long-term staking commitment.
  • Gives smaller or mid-sized holders more meaningful influence if they lock for longer.
  • Promotes fairness and inclusion, while reducing dominance.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Assuming time_multiplier = 2 (e.g., 12 months lock period):

JUP Staked :1234: Exponential Model (Votes) :chart_increasing: Logarithmic + Time Model (Votes)
100 āˆš100 = 10 log10(100) Ɨ 2 = 4.0
1,000 āˆš1,000 ā‰ˆ 31.6 log10(1,000) Ɨ 2 = 6.0
10,000 āˆš10,000 = 100 log10(10,000) Ɨ 2 = 8.0
100,000 āˆš100,000 ā‰ˆ 316.2 log10(100,000) Ɨ 2 = 10.0

Summary

  • Exponential = High protection against whales, but less inclusive for active mid-tier users.
  • Logarithmic + Time = Balanced governance that rewards loyalty, not just capital.

Both can be valid depending on DAO goals, but the logarithmic model ensures that long-term belief and participation carry meaningful weight.

:speech_balloon: Open to feedback, but based on the information shared above, I believe this model offers the most balanced and fair approach for our governance goals.

Thanks again for your input :raising_hands:
@Rodrigues770471

3 Likes
26

Great job putting all of this together. One more thing I realized: I see why youā€™re adding multiple layers to the system. It not only makes things fairer and more genuinely decentralized, but it also helps prevent anyone from gaming the vote. Not that anyone here would do thatā€”at least not intentionallyā€”but it still adds a layer of protection.

Introducing a staking duration bonus ( increased voting power), along with a minimum stake requirement, could be a smart move. It would help filter out bots that staked small amounts like 5 JUP and make it less worthwhile for people to use multiple wallets to gain voting dominance.
I also really like your thinking on the ASR reward structure you are proposing.
But must say I really do believe the exponential structure I mentioned could possibly make a better fit. It would also not be easy to game if the other layers are included. Itā€™s a great compromise as you mentioned it gives smaller but committed members/ stakers more voting power, but still respecting the larger long term whales who are taking more risks. As itā€™s exponential I donā€™t think it would hit the middle more than the top. It would however attract more smaller holders and encourage them to stake. This could be great for onboarding people in conjunction with the 2026 airdrop. It very possible that smaller holders may buy Jup once they get more involved.

2 Likes
27

Thanks @Workwithnature yes Balance Is Key.

Really appreciate your feedback, it means a lot!

I totally agree: the system needs to be fair and resistant to vote manipulation. Thatā€™s why I think the model I proposed hits a good balance.

It gives smaller, long-term stakers a real voice,

without ignoring the importance of big stakers, who take on more risk and play a key role in the network.

Everyone matters, and I believe this structure reflects that.

Letā€™s keep refining :collision: :+1:

Thanks again for your input. :raising_hands:
@Rodrigues770471

29

agree with this points. :100:

Good work @Rodrigues770471 ..(our people need to read it.. ā€œJupiverseā€ ) BWishes :dizzy:

2 Likes
30

Thanks for putting this together!

RE: Time Weighted Staking
Iā€™m also deeply interested in more voting power for people who are longer-term committed. I think thatā€™s a great way to ensure that those with the longest-term orientation have the most say.

Not sure about your specific numbers (e.g. maybe itā€™s just a 1% bonus in voting power per month staked to avoid a situation where large stakers end up having all the voting power) but def dig the idea and will try to incporrate it into an upcoming proposal.

RE: Staking Reward Boost
this one is much tougher. Iā€™m not even sure how this would work unless we set up some automatic process onchain to give ASR to others, which is tricky since it does need to be actively claimed.

but the technical stuff is doable. the optics of this are much harder, and i donā€™t think most in the community would be in favor of this. if there is a lot of support though, can revisit. fundamentally, i donā€™t think folks like giving ASR out to others, is my sense.

RE: Real USD Rewards
This one is a no go for now.

Jupiter already gives 50% of protocol fees to the Litterbox Trust to accumulate JUP. This was directly and heavily requested by the community. I think its quite a substantial demonstration of responding to community wishes and investing in the long-term future of JUP and the Jupiter ecosystem.

But the truth is, the Team does need to maintain control of operating fees, and the decision on what to do with those fees must stay outside the remit of the DAO. after all, the team built the products, has earned the revenues, and has a better sense of how to utilize them on a day to day basis for the long-term benefit of the Jupiverse.

Thanks again for putting these ideas together!

3 Likes
31

Agree itā€™s good to give those who show commitment if possible equal or much more voting power. Actually makes a lot of sense as enough knowledge has been built up over time. This also insures enough decentralisation that it will never be an issue in the future. Itā€™s not and never was about there being a trust issue with those who currently hold most of the voting power. Far from it. It just doesnā€™t look good to those who donā€™t understand that there is trust between most Dao members and team or large holders.
Especially if in 2026 you would like to onboard smaller users. It would be great to show at that point that the voting structure is both decentralised but also a little more in the hands of those who have more responsibility. It just is counterproductive to have it all in the hands of large holders. A Dao has to be decentralised. Which from what I can tell it became more centralised kinda by accident.

1 Like
32

We play with the same weapons. Split System Approach for Whales, Medium and Small Investors

Benefits and Incentives for Whales
To attract whales, the system offers exclusive benefits that maximize their earnings and favor their commitment:

  1. Increased Returns. Higher earnings percentages than traditional systems, ensuring significant economic returns.
  2. Exclusive NFTs. Premium digital objects that recognize their status and can be collected or traded.
  3. Priority Access. Early participation in new token launches, projects or strategic partnerships within the ecosystem.
  4. Autonomous Management. Whales operate in a separate system, dedicated exclusively to their growth and economic influence, without interference.

Medium and Small Investor Strategy
A completely independent system, designed to enhance medium and small investors through a multifunctional forum.

  1. Separation of Strategies
    Medium and small investors focus on concrete practical initiatives. The forum offers dedicated spaces for:
    Technical Section. To develop dApps and innovative technological tools.
    Game Zone. Creation of blockchain games for entertainment and dynamic revenue.
    Utility Project. To propose apps and services useful for the ecosystem.

  2. Multifunctional Forum
    A central hub where users can propose and implement ideas. The forum avoids platforms like X or Discord, offering an environment focused on concrete results.

  3. Division of Resources.
    The earnings of the projects are distributed as follows:
    70% to the creators of the project and the writers of their work zone, rewarding their commitment.
    30% to the community managed by medium and small investors, to support new users and ideas.

  4. Stop Minimum Earnings Airdrop or other useless income and stop silly promotions, the resources will be totally divided in the various creative forums in equal slices ensuring fairness
    The income is grouped and used to finance significant projects that bring real benefits, avoiding insufficient distributions.

  5. Inclusive and Proactive Vision
    A system that promotes involvement and autonomy, allowing medium and small investors to build their own financial future.

33

@Kash,

Thanks a lot for the thoughtful feedback!

It really helps sharpen the proposal, and Iā€™d love to respond point-by-point with some clarifications and practical examples that show how these ideas are not only possible, but potentially impactful for the long-term health of the Jupiter ecosystem.

RE: Time Weighted Staking
Iā€™m also deeply interested in more voting power for people who are longer-term committed. I think thatā€™s a great way to ensure that those with the longest-term orientation have the most say.

1. Time-Weighted Staking ā€” Balancing Power & Loyalty

Totally aligned with your view here, the goal is to reward long-term commitment without handing over full power to big stakers.

:abacus: Why the numbers make sense:

We use a logarithmic scale combined with time multipliers, this flattens big stakers influence and boosts long-term loyalty.

Example from the proposal:

  • A user with 100,000 $JUP staked for 3 months
    āž¤ has less voting power than
  • Someone with 1,000 $JUP staked for 24 months

This model is:

  • Transparent
  • Scalable
  • Encourages smaller holders to stay loyal, knowing their vote actually counts.

I believe this strengthens governance without centralizing it.

RE: Staking Reward Boost
this one is much tougher. Iā€™m not even sure how this would work unless we set up some automatic process onchain to give ASR to others, which is tricky since it does need to be actively claimed.

2. Social Impact Staking Rewards ā€” Incentivizing Good, Not Forcing It

Yes, on-chain reward mechanics for donating can seem complex, but theyā€™ve been done before. There are solid working models we can learn from.

Real-world example:

How it could work for JUP:

  • No redistribution of ASR ā€” just a small bonus (1%-6%) for those who choose to donate a portion of their yield to verified impact causes
  • Could use opt-in smart contracts with pre-approved ā€œimpact walletsā€
  • Optional incentives: extra voting power, NFTs, visibility in the ecosystem

ā†’ Itā€™s fully voluntary ā€” no one is forced to give up their rewards.
But if they want to give meaning to their staking ā€” they can.

ā†’ Aligning yield with purpose ā€” no sacrifice, just options.

Optional Bonus ā€” Small rewards (1ā€“2%) for those who choose to donate part of their staking yield to verified impact causes.

Voluntary by Design ā€” No redistribution. No pressure. Just the option to give meaning to staking.

Community-Driven ā€” Many already want to contribute to the common good. Letā€™s make it simple, visible, and valuable.

For JUP ā€” Turn staking into a force for positive change ā€” and position JUP as a purpose-led network.

RE: Real USD Rewards
This one is a no go for now.

3. Real USD Rewards ā€” Sustainability, Transparency & Smarter Impact

Props to the Jupiter team ā€” allocating 50% of protocol fees to the Litterbox Trust shows commitment to sustainability.

But there are a few key community concerns that are worth raising ā€” constructively.

3.1. Litterbox Transparency

Right now, thereā€™s no public, verifiable info (as far as i know) on what happens to the Litterbox funds:

  • Is JUP just being accumulated indefinitely?
  • Are those tokens burned? Locked? Recycled into the ecosystem?
  • Is there a long-term plan or treasury strategy?

:speech_balloon: Clarifying this would build a lot more trust
Lack of visibility makes it hard for the community to stay aligned, or feel part of the long-term strategy.

3.2. Buying JUP ā‰  Price Impact

Despite heavy JUP buybacks via Litterbox, the token price hasnā€™t reacted significantly.

Are we buying JUP just for the sake of buying ā€” without market awareness?

Buying during low liquidity + high sell pressure might just provide exits for sellers, without real price support.

We should ask:

  • Are these buys really supporting the ecosystem?
  • Or could they be better timed or structured?

3.3. A Smarter Model: Strategic Buys + USD Yield for Stakers

Instead of only passively buying JUP, why not diversify the protocol fee allocation?

Hybrid model:

  • Continue buying $JUP, but use market-based triggers (e.g. sell pressure indicators, volatility, etc.)
  • Allocate a small % (3ā€“5%) of fees to a stable USD rewards pool for loyal stakers, based on:
    • Stake amount
    • Time staked
    • Loyalty score

This gives long-term stakers:

  • Stable income (without selling JUP)
  • More reason to stay staked
  • A stronger, more aligned ecosystem

Key Benefits:

  • More transparency over fund use
  • Less sell pressure - people donā€™t need to dump JUP for liquidity
  • Predictable rewards = better long-term planning for holders
  • Smarter treasury management aligned with DeFi best practices

Final Thoughts

None of this is meant to replace existing efforts, but to complement them in a way that adds resilience, real-world value, and social utility to $JUP.

If we want long-term sustainability, we need to connect Web3 incentives with real-world impact ā€” and offer mechanisms that reward commitment, not just speculation.

I have concrete ideas on how this could be designed, implemented, and integrated.
Iā€™m happy to help refine this further or build a more robust draft if thereā€™s interest.

And as for the Social Impact Bonus, the whole point is incentive, not enforcement.
If the DAOā€™s long-term vision is purely ā€œyield vs yieldā€, with no space for alignment, community-driven governance, or meaningful use of tools like USD rewards ā€” that should be made explicit ā€” not left ambiguous.

Appreciate the back-and-forth!
@Rodrigues770471

2 Likes
34

Thanks @Yattaman

Response to the Points Raised

I agree that decentralization should be a priority, and my proposal seeks to balance voting power without excluding smaller investors.

Logarithmic Voting Model

Instead of a system that only favors whales, I propose a logarithmic voting model, where:

  • Smaller investors have more power proportional to the staking duration, not just the amount.

Key Idea

The idea is to create a system where everyone, whether large or small, can:

  • Influence governance
  • Receive USD rewards and social bonuses for supporting impactful causes.

This aligns with the vision of sustainability and social impact, without relying on airdrops or empty promotions.

The DAO Vision

The DAO should be an inclusive place where smaller investors also have:

  • An active voice
  • Rewards for their commitment.

In Summary:

  • Balance voting power
  • Maintain decentralization
  • Encourage social contribution

This will create a more fair and sustainable ecosystem for all.

Thanks for all your inputs.
@Rodrigues770471

1 Like
35

JUP Network Validator System

Note: This is just a rough idea of how we could generate revenue for stakers (and beyond), itā€™s a starting point that can be refined and expanded as we explore more possibilities together!

Objective:

To build and operate JUPā€™s own validator network, ensuring greater control over transactions, generating sustainable yield for JUP stakers, boosting network security, and promoting decentralization.

1. Role of Validators in the JUP Network

Validators are responsible for validating transactions, ensuring network integrity, and securing all blockchain operations. For the JUP Network, creating a dedicated validator network provides:

  • Full control over the validation process and rewards.
  • Greater decentralization, reducing reliance on third parties.
  • Yield generation for JUP stakers, with control over transaction fees.

2. Validator Network Structure

a. Validator Selection and Setup:

  • Technical Requirements: JUP needs to ensure that all validators have the necessary infrastructure to validate transactions efficiently, including dedicated servers, robust security, and stable connectivity.

  • Selection Criteria: Validators can be selected through a decentralized governance model based on:

    • Performance and reliability history.
    • Network infrastructure and security.
    • Engagement with the JUP community.

  • Transparent Validation: JUP can conduct regular audits of validators to ensure compliance with network guidelines, maintaining quality and performance.

b. Rewards for Validators:

  • Transaction Fees: A percentage of transaction fees generated by the JUP Network (or Solana network) would be allocated to the validators.

  • Performance Bonuses: Validators who perform well could receive additional rewards, such as extra bonuses based on uptime, response time, and contributions to network security.

3. Yield Pool Creation

a. Concept of Yield Pool:

  • A percentage of transaction fees collected from Solana or the JUP Network will be allocated into a yield pool. The goal of this pool is to generate passive income for JUP stakers.

  • Reward Distribution:

    • JUP Stakers: Stakers will receive a portion of the yield pool based on the amount of JUP they have staked and the duration of their commitment.
    • Operational Costs & Reinvestment: Part of the yield will also be allocated to reinvesting in network infrastructure and covering operational costs.

b. Benefits for JUP Stakers:

  • Passive and Sustainable Yield: JUP stakers will be able to earn passive rewards that are tied to the success of the validator network.

  • Transparency: Stakers will have full visibility on how rewards are generated and distributed, ensuring complete transparency.

  • Increased Engagement: Stakers who actively participate in governance and validator selection will have a larger share of the rewards generated by the network.

4. Decentralized Governance for Validator Selection and Yield Distribution

a. Voting and Governance for Validator Selection:

  • Governance Model: The JUP community can vote on which validators will be included in the network. This ensures decentralized control and prevents centralization of power.

  • Stake-based Voting: Voting power will be proportional to the amount of JUP staked, allowing those with more at stake to have a larger influence in validator selection.

b. Smart Contracts for Automatic Yield Distribution:

  • Smart Contracts: JUP can use smart contracts to automatically distribute rewards to stakers and validators, ensuring that the process is transparent, auditable, and secure.

5. Reinvestment and Network Growth

a. Using Yield for Network Expansion:

  • Infrastructure Expansion: JUP can reinvest a portion of the generated yield to expand the validator network, enhance infrastructure, and implement new technological solutions.

  • Social Impact Projects & Innovations: Part of the yield could also be allocated towards social impact initiatives and innovative projects that can help grow the JUP ecosystem.

b. Financial Sustainability and Growth:

  • Long-term Sustainability: With its own validator network, JUP Network can generate stable and ongoing yield and reinvest the funds into the most promising projects, reducing dependence on external capital.

  • Ecosystem Growth: This validator network will allow JUP to attract new stakers, validators, and developers, creating a stronger and more decentralized ecosystem.

6. Advantages of JUP Creating Its Own Validator Network

a. Full Control and Decentralization:

  • JUP Network will have complete control over the validator network, ensuring decentralization and network security, while promoting open governance.

b. Long-Term Sustainability:

  • By creating its own validator network, JUP Network can generate consistent yield for JUP stakers in a transparent and sustainable way, without depending on intermediaries.

c. Community Engagement:

  • The decentralized governance system and yield distribution will incentivize the community to actively engage in validator selection and governance, ensuring a continuous cycle of growth and involvement.

Conclusion

Building its own validator network will allow JUP Network to have greater control over transactions, generate sustainable yield for stakers, and promote security and decentralization. With a decentralized governance system, strategic reinvestment, and community incentives, JUP can set a strong example of decentralization and innovation in the DeFi space.

This project can be gradually scaled, with periodic reviews to ensure that growth goals and sustainability are met, and the JUP community remains at the core of the operation.

Together, we can create a sustainable, transparent, and decentralized ecosystem for JUP Network!

Final Thought: The real focus should be on generating real revenue and distributing it fairly ā€” not just creating groups or building communities for the sake of it. Itā€™s time to think outside the box, move beyond superficial growth, and create real, tangible value that drives long-term success for everyone involved!

P.S. tagging a few great minds for input: @meow @Kash @0xSoju @9yointern :raising_hands:

Thanks to all,
@Rodrigues770471

1 Like
36

JUP Validator Strategy + Web3 Services Ecosystem

A sustainable revenue model for long-term staking and ecosystem growth

:light_bulb: Bonus Thought: A Solid Base Instead of Scattered Mushrooms :mushroom:

Right now, a lot of working groups are popping up like mushrooms, which is great for energy, but risky without direction or infrastructure. This validator-based model, combined with a centralized toolbox of Web3 services, could give builders a real foundation to develop on top of the JUP ecosystem.

Instead of everyone reinventing the wheel, letā€™s give them the engine, chassis, and fuel ā€” all aligned with staking and ecosystem growth.

1. JUP Operates a Network of High-Performance Validators

  • Launch a network of JUP-branded validators on Solana (initially), with plans to expand to other chains!
  • Commission set between 0%ā€“5%, depending on strategy:
    • 0% ā†’ attract delegators and build trust
    • Small % ā†’ generate direct validator rewards for treasury

Benefits:

  • Earn transaction fees + staking rewards
  • Boost JUP visibility and credibility in the ecosystem
  • Allow community delegation, reinforcing decentralization and DAO trust

2. Yield Strategy for Long-Term Stakers

  • Part of validator earnings go into a Yield Pool:
    • Distributed to JUP stakers
    • Used to cover operational costs
    • Optionally reinvested to scale validator infra

ā€œStake JUP ā†’ Strengthen the network ā†’ Earn real yieldā€

3. Launch JUP Web3 Infrastructure Products

Offer Web3 tools for devs/projects:

  • RPC & indexer services
  • Token & NFT metadata APIs
  • Real-time Solana analytics dashboards
  • Webhook infrastructure

Free tier ā†’ attract devs
Paid tiers ā†’ revenue for JUP ecosystem

4. Connect Products to the Validator Ecosystem

Clients using JUP APIs are encouraged to stake JUP or delegate to JUP validators in return for:

  • Discounts
  • Premium access
  • Governance perks

This aligns usage + staking + governance into one circular economy.

Optional Add-ons (Future Phases)

  • JUP Dev Grants funded by validator earnings
  • Token-gated dashboards for stakers
  • DePIN services (e.g., storage, compute nodes for real-world infra)

Note:

This is just a raw concept, but it shows how JUP could evolve from just a governance token into a revenue-generating infrastructure layer ā€” empowering its DAO and delivering real value to long-term stakers and builders alike.

Final Thought:

ā€œWe need to generate real revenue and distribute it, not just build circles around communities. Staking should mean something, and create real economic feedback for those who believe in the long-term mission.ā€

P.S. always tag a few great minds for input: @meow @Kash @0xSoju @9yointern

@Rodrigues770471

3 Likes
37

But even thatā€™s enough, we canā€™t take it anymore, who really holds this power? They talk about decentralization, but everything still seems to be in the hands of the usual suspects, everything is at a standstill, they are still discussing whether the neutral vote is dispensable as if it were a serious thing, we are at clinical levels.

Really Have you ever seen a project for the community? That really looks to the future, with a concrete plan to deal with the collapse of the crypto world expected for 2026? Here there are no strategies, here there are pimps to distract the masses or ass kissers for the first boss who passes by. What are you and I talking about now, what does the two of us have in our pockets? Wouldnā€™t it be better to use the energy for the community that matters (not for the pimps) but for those who really believe in it.