Jupiter JUP Airdrop: Balanced Proposal for Jupuary 2025

Jupiter DAO
1

Jupiter JUP Airdrop: Balanced Proposal for Jupuary 2025

Hello JUP fam! Last week I posted my initial proposal and analysis. Within a week it became the most discussed topic on Jupresearch with 300+ comments. Jupuary is clearly a hot topic now:

‘‘And I just want to say that I understand a lot of the fear that is going on, and a lot of the arguments on both sides. However, I do actually feel like the fears could actually be overstated’’ - Meow in the latest J.U.P. Really

The proposal received overwhelming positive feedback, and it also got a good amount of constructive feedback - especially in regards to allocations for Perps and JUP Stakers.

This is a community proposal. It has not yet been voted on. The author is not part of the team.

Thanks to you Perp Traders for your valuable feedback

I would like to give a big thanks @Shrekt @WTP @SolanaSultan @rb87 @Jeanlucbb0 @Asimsy @Bartup3 @vernon @VengefulDemon @Delyo and multiple others for their help feedback about giving Jupiter Perpetual volume a greater role in this proposal!

Thank you DAO Stakers for your sharp minds and feedback

I am giving a big thanks to those who convinced me to increase the allocation to JUP Stakers @miuq @BTC @TabiZzFR @Jazy @The_Lacrymator @Asimsy @D3vpurity @Shrekt @shrigma @Bluebird @Delyo @VengefulDemon @MegaB1973 @Ayn0n @Bartup3 @splinter @davidkim @shinkiro14 @SolSixties @PavMor @nicsholdn

1. I most admit that I have overlooked the significant Perpetual volume of $129.7B USD due to a small user count of 234,576. Perps warrant a much larger allocation than the previous 20M.

2. I propose 57.14% more JUP to the DAO / JUP Stakers. It is very important to appreciate JUP Stakers and to incentivise the DAO to vote ‘yes’ for Jupuary.

  • This would give JUP Stakers a total bonus on top of their regular allocations, of 250 JUP per 1000 JUP Staked. The distribution is best done linearly, on the total of votes.

Perps Leverage & Fees vs Swaps

Perpetual volume at $129.7 Billion USD is around 1/3rd (38%) compared to swap volume which is at 344 Billion USD, so it deserves a much larger allocation here. I first overlooked this because perps only have 234,576 traders but the $129.7 Billion USD volume shows that these are mainly power users, doing 25X times more volume⁶ per user, compared to a regular trader (swap user).

Screenshot 2024-11-05 at 00.10.35
Screenshot 2024-11-05 at 00.10.351978×430 49.7 KB

The Perpetual volume of $129.7B includes a lot of leverage (up to 100X). With just $50 of collateral, a user can generate $10,000 in volume on Jupiter perps ($50 buy/open + $50 sell/close x 100X leverage = $10,000. The fee would be around $10 for doing that (roughly 10% opening fee and 10% closing fee). The borrowing fees only become significant at longer duration.

Swap volume on the other hand is around 3X more at $340B, but without the leverage. Assuming the same 1 trade (buy and sell) the swap user would instead need $5,000 of assets (100X more than with perps, due to the lack of any leverage) to create $10,000 in volume compared. The LP fees and slippage here are around $10 as well for stable tokens with a large market cap and Liquidity Pool.

Screenshot 2024-11-05 at 05.20.16
Screenshot 2024-11-05 at 05.20.162802×1150 251 KB

The cost of trading $10,000 of volume on Jupiter perps ends up being around the same as the cost of doing swaps without leverage ($10 costs to create $10K of trading volume).

We are proposing to increase the perpetual trading allocation from 20M to 120 Million, because that’s what the perpetuals trading category deserves according to the volume data and the math.

Higher allocation for JUP Stakers

We are proposing a 57.23% increase in the allocation for JUP Stakers from 70M to 110M for 440M staked, which will result in an average of 25% extra bonus for JUP Stakers instead of the previous 15.9%. This results in 250 JUP per 1000 JUP staked bonus, instead of 159 JUP per 1000 staked bonus.

The allocation would be linear as most have suggested (which has been heavily debated in the first post). If this was a tiered allocation we would normally add a 50 JUP minimum to exclude 350K < 50 $JUP stakers, which would be needed if the allocation would be tiered. But for non-tiered it’s not needed since someone with 40 JUP would just get 10 JUP only.

The DAO / JUP Stakers would receive this 25% bonus or 250 JUP per 1000 JUP staked as an extra on top of all the other Jupuary allocations they would get from trading volumes, community contributions and New Features. A 1,000,000 JUP Staker in this example would get 250,000 JUP. There is also the ~ 45% APY from ASR, but we’ll leave that out of the picture for Jupuary.

Instead of looking at the amount staked, we will use the total voting power as the criterium for the allocation to the DAO / JUP Stakers, to reward more active and engaged contributors. This means that ones who voted more than average, will get even more than the 25% bonus and those who votes less than average get less. The precise data needed for this is available in the Jupiter database.

Screenshot 2024-11-05 at 00.09.59
Screenshot 2024-11-05 at 00.09.593156×834 225 KB

Request to JUP Stakers

Some JUP stakers have said that they want an even higher allocation of Jupuary, and that the suggested amounts are not enough (eg. 25% bonus / 250 JUP per 1000 JUP). Meow said that we have to cut the fat compared to last year’s airdrop, and everyone has to make a some compromises.

Meow also made compromises on behalf of the community; with a 30% JUP supply burn, and allocating 200M JUP to extend the ASR for 1 more year. I hope stakers can be content with the extra bonus of 250 JUP per 1000 JUP staked, in addition to any other allocation you they by using Jupiter.

In the end it would be best for everyone in the Jupiter community to find a balanced solution which ensures community growth, gives a fair allocation (data-based) to all legitimate users. We need to implement thorough blockchain-analysis based deduplication and anti-Sybil. This all results in positive community sentiment and (social)media attention for Jupiter and JUP.

‘‘I feel like, for me; our community has a growth mindset, and we should go ahead. And figure out how to do that.’’ - Meow in the latest J.U.P. Really

Final Proposal

After implementing feedback and discussion from 300+ comments and 10+ similar topics I have made a final proposal. The proposal splits the 700M in two equal parts of 50% / 50%.

Regular trading volume without leverage makes up 71.5% of Jupiter trading volume and 78% - 86.7%+ of the user count (353,468 JUP stakers with 50+ JUP vs 2,302,243 traders with $1,000.00+ volume). It would be fair to allocate at least 50% to these 87.7% $1,000.00+ users.

The other 50% (350M) is allocated to JUP Stakers, leveraged trading (perps), community contributors, New Features users and JLP holders. Below you can see how this plays out.

All Non-Leveraged Trading Volume (all except perps)

Below allocations per tier are 19X - 64X times less than in the Jupuary airdrop round #1!

350M JUP (50% of Jupuary) | 5 Adjusted Tiers of all Non-Leveraged Trading Volume¹:

¹ This category includes all trading volume from Swaps, DCA’s and Limit orders. Regular swap trades still represent ~ 71.5% ($344B) of all $481.5B volume on Jupiter, with Jupiter perps making up the remaining 27% of volume ($130B) and DCA & Limit only 1.5% (7.5B). The tier users have to still be added by the team; it represents a small portion of 1.5% with no big impact.

² A new $10M+ tier is added to reflect the 9.5X volume growth of Jupiter in 1 year. The new tier properly rewards the top power users like traders, whales and KOL’s.

³ $1,000.00 minimum volume requirement used to reduce the general user base from ~ 15.5 Million wallets to just ~ 2.3 Million users. This effectively weeds out around ~ 13.2 Million low quality spam users / bots and airdrop farmers. No allocation for wallets with < $1,000.00 volume. Further solid deduplication & anti-Sybil also need to be performed with blockchain tools.

Stakers, Perps, Community, New Features & JLP

Below Allocations are all new and are now just being introduced for the first time in Jupuary.

350M JUP (50%) | JUP Stakers, Perps, Community, New Tokens and Features & JLP

  • DAO / Stakers¹: 110M JUP for 440M Staked JUP = 250 JUP per 1,000 JUP Staked

  • Community contributors²: 50M JUP / ~ 156,198 members = ~ 320 JUP on average

  • New Token & Feature Users³ bonus: 50M JUP: / est. 1M users = ~ 50 JUP on average

  • JLP Holders⁴ bonus: 20M JUP / 235M JLP x 1000 = 85 JUP per 1000 JLP

  • Perpetual Traders⁵: 120M JUP / 129.7B = **~ 925 JUP per $1M perp volume (still has to be properly tiered⁶ among the 234,576 traders, once this data is coded into a new script)
    .

¹ 0.25 JUP per 1 staked JUP / 25% bonus on top of staked JUP. This is actually to be rewarded linearly on the total voted amount, considering consistency and contribution.
² eg. Discord, Workgroups, Forums, POAP, Promotors etc. based on level of contribution; manual review by the team as before
³ Any user who traded JUP, JLP, JupSOL or WEN and/or who used new Jupiter niche features like DCA, DVA, Ape. Volume based distribution, specifics up to the team.
⁴ If possible using the average of different snapshots of round 2.
⁵ Average Jupiter perps trader did $553K trading volume (129,7B / 234,576 users). Average per trader = 120M JUP / 129.7B total volume = ~ 925 JUP per $1M perp volume (average)
⁶ Must be properly tiered, but we didn’t yet make a script to identity the appropriate tiers and the users per tier. Since the average trading volume per user for Perps of $553K is 25X larger vs Swap at $22K, the tiering will likely also be 25X larger as swap (pending final data).

Conclusion

This has really been a huge community effort. Alongside many of you I spent around 100+ hours on data analysis, reading and replying to hundreds of posts and comments, discussing ideas and implementing feedback. I also read and replied to all other Jupuary topics. I want to thank especially the ones who continued arguing with me and providing new data and insight.

  • Since the last edit we made the following drastic changes:

    • We decreased regular volume allocation by 100M JUP
    • We removed the $100.00 - $1,000.00 regular volume tier (40M)
    • We included DCA and Limit orders in the volume allocation
    • We we decreased the contributors allocation from 70M to 50M
    • We we decreased the new token and features from 70M to 50M
    • We increased the Jupiter Perps allocation by 6X with 100M
    • We grew the JUP Staker amount by 57% from 70M to 110M

We know that not everyone can be 100% happy with any proposal. There will also always be people voting yes or no even in the DAO. That’s part of it. Still it would be interesting to see how the majority thinks about this proposal. Do you believe this proposal is balanced enough?

Possibly the team can (some of) this proposal (with their own changes) for a DAO vote. It would be great if you can let us know in the comments, wether you agree and think it’s good enough!

''The first Jupuary got us here, right. And It’s actually my belief that we need to do two more Jupuary’s. To get where we want to be, we need two more years.

And I do actually think right now right now, given what Jupuary is now, we need to adopt a very strong growth mindset…‘’ - Meow in the latest J.U.P. Really

I am confident we can make this happen together! Let’s make Jupuary 2025 a big success!

27 Likes
2

Team know the best , they will come with it.
Just wait.

The JUPUARY is not even certained yet

10 Likes
3

Meow clearly said in the last J.U.P. Really it’s a very difficult job for him to come up with the criteria and allocations, he said ‘very’ 6 times. Also he said doing long research posts takes a lot of mental capacity. He also said: ''the community will discuss it, we’ll fight, and ‘‘we’ll vote’’.

So yes the team will come up with something, but this is part of a democratic process where the community has influence on the project VS centralised top-down leadership. If there is something from a voluntary community contribution they can use, than that’s nice for all.

7 Likes
4

This is still more or less last JUPUARY criteria.
JUP had increase in userbase and adoption
I don’t think last year minimum volume should still be used again. We can make it 3x or 5x of last minimum volume(IMO)

AND LASTLY as @D3vpurity said : TEAM KNOW THE BEST AND THEY WILL COME WITH IT

5 Likes
5

Huh @Carls? Of course not!

The last Jupuary round #1 has a $0,01 minimum volume criteria to get a 200 JUP airdrop. The criterium here is $1,000.00 volume for 63 JUP airdrop.

That is 100,000X the volume requirement for 1/3rd of the airdrop.

It has been made 100,000X in this proposal.

2 Likes
6

It’s great post.
At least lending out your opinion on big topics
But maybe everything will make good sense after JUPUARY vote pass

Even if the team think the work is much ATM
They will still come up with best idea

Last JUPUARY see tonnes of criteria , and lastly , the team come up with best one that reaches all and sundry

I expect this too this time
And I know the TEAM WILL STILL COME UP WITH BEST CRITERIA , If the vote to continue JUPUARY passed

4 Likes
7

Last criteria base volume is 1k
200 JUP is for all 955k wallet
Not a base criteria just a welcome bonus to all that use Jupiter exchange directly or indirectly

8

That’s exactly the same, just with another name. Wether you call or see it as it a gift or an airdrop or an incentive or a distribution, in the end it’s all the same.

It doesn’t matter what you called it, there was a 200 JUP airdrop for someone with $0,01 or $1 in volume. That was the lowest criterium to get the airdrop.

In this community proposal the lowest criterium is $1,000.00.

1 Like
9

As a staker and daily product user this still a clear NO from my side

Although appreciate the mention :joy:

10

Thanks for your comment. That was to be expected since you wrote you want 100% of the 700,000,000 JUP to go to Staking and 0% / 0 JUP to the rest of the community (edit: or 50% minimum as per your latest reply).

There is little to no balance in that, no growth mindset and no alignment with Meow / the team who invented Jupuary as a means of growing the existing community, and who’ve made it clear in the last J.U.P. Really they’d like to do 2 more Jupuary’s.

4 Likes
11

Like I’ve said in the last post, the amount of detail displayed in your proposal is tremendous. And I have to say that I greatly appreciate you taking the time to reply to every single reply to your 1st proposal post in detail, and to make updated proposal in such a short amount of time.
Great work man! :heart_hands::ringer_planet:

4 Likes
12

happy i ve helped you change your mind about increasing the allocation of the Stakers :smile:

1 Like
13

I don’t support the proposal but i appreciate the effort and work, it is clear that you have put so much time in this. Many things are still volume and tier based in this and to speak about perps it doesnt make much sense since fees can be time depended too. A person might be very active trader and can open many positions. Another one can open long term positions and spend weeks or months of fees. One other person can open high volume positions. These 3 different persons volume will be significantly different but the fee they spent would be very very similar. Fee based , time based , in addition maybe pnl based linear dsitribution might make more sense.
Also tiers are sometimes problem since it eliminates too many people if they are very close to upper level. For example if there is a tier from 100k to 1m who wants to end up at 900k and lose the chance right ? It is 9x difference from the bottom level. Same can be said for other criterias too. And don’t forget the time and risk factors of other instruments than swap option.
Instead of tiers
Fee based linear
Time based bonus
Order amount based bonuses
and many other things can be added to the subject

2 Likes
14

Yes totally. 25% bonus (250 JUP per 1000 JUP staked) is a much more attractive proposition for stakers, which might help the community getting the 50%+ needed vote to continue with Jupuary.

I also believe the allocation is in the right hands with most JUP Stakers, with those who are strong holders and believers and aligned with the vision of the team.

15

No, thats not true.

As I told you in the other topic I would be highly benefiting from your structure, but that doesn’t mean that I like it.

And btw, as you don’t like when the others accuse you of doing it for personal benefits, you shouldn’t do it neither :wink:

I will just vote for Jupuary if it’s at least 50% for stakers distributed in linear or tier method, I don’t really care

16

Won’t see it as such
It is not base criteria
It probably match the motive of first JUPUARY - no cat will be left out

1 Like
17

Tiered over linear allocation system
We used it last JUPUARY and no issue

So I don’t see it as issue this time around

I will still chose tiered
But the base volume shouldn’t be 1k
Even 5k to 10k is okay

1 Like
18

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it.

The perps allocation might indeed be better if it were based on fees paid. I just know the team wants to keep it as simple as possible and the proposal is already quite complex as it is. We also don’t have that data for fees paid in numbers of users.

Meow said this about it 1 year ago:

I would make the tiers tighter for the perps, like a 5X difference instead of 10X difference. I worked on a tier example for perps for a few hours in the middle of the night, but the specifics of it didn’t work out yet due to lack of user data (until now).

For getting the specific tiered allocations for perps, I’d first have to get / make a script doing the amount of users between a minimum and maximum volume amount - like we did with the swap volume, using the Jupiter database information.

This was considered by the team but not possible as explained in Grow the Pie #1:

Yes, these wouldn’t work as an exclusion criteria for many reasons that were previously discussed, mainly since it would exclude too many legit users, but like you say they could be added as a bonus / multiplier of reasonable size.

19

Okay fair enough, I’ll edit my reply in that case. Wish you the best of luck!

20

Thanks @SolSixties I read and highly appreciate the feedback you gave on this post and the one leading up to this one, especially coming from a Mensa member! (:

2 Likes