50% penalty may be arguable. But according to CatalyticsPro, Top 10% of stakers staked 1000+ and Top 5% of stakers staked 2254+ $JUP. Total staked $JUP count is 473,259,695.39
1087 addresses staked between 50k-1m and 22 addresses staked 1m+
Around 500k addresses staked between 25-50k $JUP
Roughly 350k addresses have under 1000 $JUP staked.
Without a hurting penalty small accounts (majority) may suffer and start questioning their decision about considering $JUP as a long-term investment.
Instant unstake penalty must give a meaningful reward to small accounts for motivation against price declines.
Moreover it would be better if ASR was nonlinear.
3 Likes
What about 33.3% tax?
2 Likes
33% is still kind of high thats what i think
1 Like
Thanks for the reply.
The model has to change if the team and JUP DAO care about sustainability. If you want evidence of the inefficacy of the current system, just look at JUP’s price. The token burn and buyback scheme announcement has had no impact on price.
If every JUP was immediately unstaked, the entire Jupiter governance system would breakdown. That’s why stakers are told beforehand that it will take 30 days to unstake… to avoid a JUP DAO mass exodus. It is a condition of participating in JupiterDAO and people accept the conditions because they want to earn the ASR.
I agree it’s not a guaranteed fixed yield — but there needs to be, because it is a job. Yes it’s voluntary, but only because the rewards are there. And the rewards are there because it is essential to the function of the governance system. If you switched out rewards for a salary or fixed yield income, it would be a job. And calling it a job would provide the added benefit of assisting people with bank loan applications and professional opportunities. Please don’t forget that DAO governance requires a significant commitment of time.
Furthermore, a percentage of JUP supply should be committed permanently to governance, ensuring JUP is always staked while the fixed yields can change from ASR period to ASR period.
@ferdinandoff what would you like to see happen beyond these three quarters?
Were people not given a choice when they originally staked?
I don’t know any other area of society where governance is flexible. Whether it’s state governance or corporate governance, etc., there is a certain level of commitment involved. JUP DAO should be run by people who are committed to the protocol’s future.
30-days to unstake is more than reasonable for access to the current high variable yield ASR.
- Matt
3 Likes
You are correct, I did not mean to steal the OPs post, it was my first post and i wasn’t well aware of the JupResearch Structure. I posted a topic yesterday.
3 Likes
It’s hard to grasp this bc it is tough for JUP to perform well when sol is down. But like for like JUP:sol JUP is falling slightly behind
1 Like
Exactly! There needs to be an opportunity cost for staking. 30 days is honestly the perfect amount. Not 29 days and not 31.
It’s enough time to exit the project if people feel the need
2 Likes
Judging the system’s efficiency based on price is unreasonable. We had the exact same system in place when JUP was 120% higher, so price alone doesn’t determine whether the system is working or not.
As I already mentioned, we currently only have funding for three quarters of ASR. You are suggesting that participating in the DAO is a job and that we should receive fixed yields - so please explain where the JUP for this would come from and how it would be sustainably funded long-term. Provide concrete numbers, such as the fixed yield percentage, the duration of staking, the estimated number of participating wallets, and their expected returns. Also, clarify whether these payouts would be daily, weekly, biweekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly. The reality is that this simply isn’t feasible to implement.
This isn’t traditional finance - crypto governance is often flexible. Solana’s stake pools, Lido and Rocket Pool all offer unstaking options with penalties or liquidity solutions. Instant unstaking with a penalty fits that model, balancing flexibility and sustainability.
3 Likes
I didn’t say price alone. You’re misrepresenting what I said. How about addressing the main issue that with every additional DAO member, individual yields decrease. Do you not see that as a serious flaw in the current system?
Jupiter just destroyed 3 billion of their governance tokens. Supply is clearly not an issue but if it were up to me, I’d commit an amount of stake exclusively for governance purposes and sell those positions off to investors for fixed yield, whether it be paid in JUP or USD stables.
We’re in the nascent stages of crypto governance so it should not be used as its own standard. The best we can do is look at traditional finance and governance which has been evolved over several decades. If something doesn’t exist in one form or another, there’s usually a reason. Variable yields is what’s holding JUP from going higher and allowing unstake with penalty could cause the system to break.
@Ferdinandoff what would stop everyone from taking the penalty and unstaking at the same time? And if everyone did it simultaneously, like we see with bank runs, what effect would that have on JUP’s governance system?
4 Likes
posted in the wrong topic lol
4 Likes
I am not going to unstake because we are waiting to long and i do not wanted to lose any rewards coming this year and the 2026, also remember the benefits we get in the long term, …unstable economy can cause us to lose more than any charges o fees // …not financial advice but is saver to wait and keep calm, we are in that transition time where nothing is clear with new GOV and new rules coming. In my case i only manage or i only use resources that will not affect my priorities… I trust in this project “Jup” would be great GREAT! hope the best to all of our members 
4 Likes
Very interesting thread-topic. Personally I would just keep it as is. If you stake your Jup then it is up to you obviously to decide when to sell. Plan to unstake 30 days before selling. As for emergencies. Only stake a certain amount of your Jup if you don’t have funds elsewhere.
It’s difficult because on the one hand you have people who wish to stake all their Jup because they believe but also wish to get rewards. That’s why we stake. But if an emergency arises would like the option to liquidate. All understandable. On the other hand you have people who would like to sell if the market goes against them. To most likely buy back in the bear. Then there are those who wish to hold long term who don’t care either way to a point. What they care more about is price stability. No huge drops that create panic selling.
4 Likes
50% is too aggressive, alternatively I’d go for a 6%, you should note that some users/stakers actually bought the token with their own money. Also, supposing at the point of unstaking the value of Jup had dropped from the time you bought it you’d already be at a loss, so let’s be considerate.
3 Likes
Considering others is important and one can see by Jupiter’s ethos of PPP it’s of utmost importance. There is however also ongoing rewards to help offset temporary losses.
2 Likes
Technically “rewards” come once in a quarter, so one may miss them if they had to withdraw before then
2 Likes
True that. Would be nice to accommodate everyone. I would imagine from the teams perspective it can be quite challenging. You have to look at it this way. You have a choice to lock your tokens for one month or more, or not. You can choose how many to lock. You get rewards for locking. That’s kinda the entire point right 
2 Likes
I have been thinking on this and came up with a different approach to the same problem.
THE PROBLEM:
Staking JUP locks liquidity. Sometimes life demands capital immediately. How can we free up staked JUP quicker for people who need it ASAP?
MY THOUGHTS:
I am curious to know if the idea of creating a Whales Market/NFT Marketplace style P2P market for selling staked accounts at a discounted rate has been theorized?
When a user wants to sell part of their staked JUP, a smart contract could mint an NFT representing the staked amount. This NFT would essentially be a claim on the staked JUP in the original stake account, including the governance rights and [future rewards].
Upon the completion of the 30-day period, the smart contract should automatically trigger the unstaking of the tokens from the original stake account and then transfer them directly to the buyer’s wallet based on the NFT ownership. The NFT should be designed in such a way that it represents not just a claim but a binding contract to the underlying staked tokens. Ownership of the NFT should directly correlate with the right to receive the tokens post-cooldown.
I am not proficient in the technology so I am not sure of all the intricacies, but I know that being able to sell and get quick liquidity is attractive to the sellers, and getting discounted staked JUP and future rewards on the amount is attractive to buyers.
Any thoughts?
7 Likes
I honestly think instant unstaking is a horrible idea.
Would I like to be more liquid? Ofc I wouldn’t. But it’s gonna make JUP a “claim asr and dump type token”
4 Likes
Oooo this is actually a good idea!
I’d 100% but staked JUP on sale.
Bro you’re a genius!
2 Likes
interesting! thanks!
it’s challenging! // need to reach your level, // i realize how could use an NFT (more to learn!)
1 Like