Guys let’s get over it. As I said before, it’s going to be impossible to make everyone happy. Tbh, I’m not happy myself with everything was said by the team and about some decisions. However, I do understand that I’m just a drop in the ocean and, I do understand that they are smarter than me and they know for sure what’s better for Jupiter.
After all, nobody forced me to become part of Jupiverse.
From what I understand, the overall usage of the platform will be the decisive factor in how big is going to be the allocation for the qualifying users.
Personally, I thought for sure staking and voting, perps trading will be the most important factors for the upcoming airdrop. It seems like it wasn’t enough only to stake and vote, or to only use perps, or only to swap.
The reality is some of us will get a decent slice of the pie, some not so big and, probably, some will get nothing.
I think, from now long, we should focus on real important things, like how to improve everything around Jupiverse.
I think it’s time to come together, to trust team’s vision, pass this upcoming proposal and move on.
I wish you all the best. Good luck.
Feels like there is a lot of entitlement around Jupuary. As a new user who just staked some JUP knowing full aware it’s probably going to decrease in the short term I am not worried. I am also using Jupiter just for the sake of using as it’s simply the best platform around (keeping in mind I have paid hundred’s of fees just in the last weeks post snapshot).
One needs to take a long term vision to the project where I believe there seems to be a lot of short term thinking.
With that said I feel we have every right to question and the team and put forth your points. Isn’t that the whole point of a DAO? If all we’re saying and following is trust the team then might as well have a fully centralized platform where everything is dictated to us.
Regarding this problem, where the tokens from the airdrop should go, absolutely no, the DAO should have no say in that regard.
After all, thats a gift from the team to the community. Why do you think, we have any right to tell them how to distribute this gift?
The tokens for Jupuary come from the Community side of the JUP pool. Hence, the community will decide whether or not to continue Jupuary for the next two years.
Criteria for distribution is tricky. You could say it would be like asking a fox to guard the hen house. But it would be a real test of the DAO to see if it has truly embraced PPP.
When you bought your Jup tokens, you didn’t know there are planned 3 more airdrops? You didn’t know that there are billions of tokens sitting on the side waiting to hit the market?
This was, in my opinion, team’s biggest mistake, to ask the DAO to vote for Jupuary.
One more thing. If I’m not happy with a project, I sell the tokens and move on. It’s that simple.
If they are putting it to vote and are reading our suggestions then yes. It is not a right as you put it but it is what is being suggested and the direction we’re headed. Ultimately where do you envision the project in 5 years time?
Would you want the DAO to be making decisions autonomously or would you expect the team to be one dictating the direction? The point of experimenting with the DAO is so that after some initial guidance ideally you can self-govern.
If you always expect to believe in the team and follow them blindly without input then this is no different than a centralized organization and the DAO is just not actually doing anything but putting a show.
Hi,
It seems that you understand me but you don’t understand me
In my opinion, the team should’ve gone ahead with the Jupuary 2 exactly the same way they did with the first one.
After the Jupuary2 distribution, they should’ve come out and tell us what’s the direction they would like to see Jupiter heading to. From there, the DAO using the power of vote, could’ve agree or disagree with the team.
Everything regarding this airdrop should be handled by the team, all the decisions made by the team, no matter we agree or disagree with them.
The DAO it’s us, people. Do you think the people will vote for the best interest of Jupiter or for their financial interest? I think we all know the answer to that.
Sure, we all can have opinions and suggestions, but at the end of the day, regarding this matter, Jupuary2, the DAO should have no say. I think this is right for the entire ecosystem.
I did hear Meow talking about 2 more Jupuary instead 3, but he didn’t exposed the reasons and the advantages. What’s going to happen with the rest of the tokens if we have 2 more Jupuary? How can I vote for something that I don’t understand the logic behind it? In this situation I have 2 options, ignore the vote or trust the team vision and vote as they want.
And, one more thing. Changing the rules during the game, never looks good
Absolutely. What stands out about this team is their commitment to consistently seeking feedback and acting on it. They’ve actively encouraged the DAO to participate in these Jupuary discussions and have emphasized that they’re carefully reviewing both proposals and feedback. Time and again, they’ve demonstrated responsiveness, fine-tuning products based on community input and beyond. This consistent approach has earned them a solid reputation and, consequently, my trust—until they prove otherwise by diverging from the high standards they’ve set.
In the context of Jupuary, my perspective is simple: it’s impossible to satisfy everyone fully, but as long as the majority benefit and the community remains united and forward-focused afterward, I would consider that a successful outcome, even if I’m not directly part of that majority. Besides my ASR, all the JUP I hold was purchased by me personally. I missed last year’s Jupuary and started buying JUP after Jupiter launch. I did so because I genuinely believe in the project and its potential. That’s why I staked all my JUP nearly a year ago and have left it untouched since then.
I just hope that this Jupuary comes and pass successfully, allowing the community to move forward. I haven’t seen anything draw as much attention here, and understandably so, given the significant value at stake. My hope is that engagement in the DAO will continue to be as strong after Jupuary as it is now.
You’re just drawing the line in a different place than me (pre/post Jupuary). No problems with that, I just respectfully don’t agree with that view point as that logic will keep applying on decisions made by the team. I would argue the earlier we involve the DAO in these wider decisions the better it is as an experiment.
The whole point is to align these interests. You want to set up the system in such a way that voting in the best interest of Jupiter is in line with your financial interest.
Now the issue is that some people are more short term focused whereas others will focus on the long run. I’d say the goal is to incentivize the long run instead of the short run so that’s basically the current ongoing debate on the criteria and how to sensibly move forward.
Well for one you can try and get more informed. In the end we advocate for transparency so the team should also deliver on it. If you believe you only have two options you are in a stuck mindset of just listening to what others will do.
I agree but in the end nothing is set in stone. You could say there are 3 more Jupuaries and distribute 1 JUP in each and that holds true. There are many ways to “technically” not change the rules but I don’t think we should be worrying about these; focus on the macro and long term benefits.
Again I do worry most people are in the short run but then it’s up to us to push the future of the project so that it’s sustainable and works.
Absolutely agree here. I would probably add that it’s better to find ways to satisfy the long term believers in the project versus the short term profit focused ones and that’s the challenge the team will face in the upcoming weeks.
All my JUP I bought personally around two weeks ago. As a new user I will miss both the first and second Jupuary but I hope the project survives longer even after the ongoing bull run.
A lot of activity indeed due to the financial incentives. Not only that but because we’re seeing all time highs. Only time will tell here but I do hope a good long term foundation is built.
I’m not gaslighting anyone. To be clear, I’m not buying into the PPP narrative. To me it sounds like socialism and participation trophies. Nowhere in the contract does it say that life is fair. There are going to be winners and there are going to be losers. I also believe you learn more from losing - if you’re willing to do the work to understand why you lost - than from winning. I was merely pointing out the perspective of the team as I understand it.
Also, users are not being diluted through inflation. Those tokens already exist and will be distributed one way or another. Using them as a means to grow the DAO is pretty much exactly what they are intended for. They are governance tokens for the DAO. They are not stock in the company that is Jupiter.
I don’t know man. I’ve been reading your posts. I don’t agree with you at all. The message I got from the team is the overall usage of the platform, will be the decisive factor. Maybe I’m wrong, but this is what I understand so far.
I don’t have a problem with that. As many others, I bought my Jup tokens, staked the tokens and, didn’t unstaked so far. However, I don’t expect to qualify for an airdrop just because of that. At the same time, I didn’t expect the stakers to be left out, especially when these staked tokens are not a “gift” but an investment. Investing in a token and holding it for a year it’s not easy.
On the other side, there are stakers that are staking part of Jupuary. Some of them already dumped a good size of their airdrop. Should they be rewarded with another airdrop? I don’t know.
That’s why, I believe, the overall usage of the platform it would make a better criteria. Just an opinion.
I disegree. That’s still changing the rules during the game.
Anyway, this is not a problem for me. 1,2 or 3 more Jupuary. I just think the time was off to bring that up now. I would’ve finished with this year Jupuary and, after that I would’ve bring it up and discuss it.
It’s all semantics in the end but happy to agree to disagree.
It’s a fair point on bringing it up after, but I still believe bringing it now is better and hearing from the users side instead of coming up with criteria and announcing it.
At least now there is more transparency and even if they don’t use anything suggested in the different threads it’s part of the input and makes the users feel more heard.
and very careful with there utterances at this point.
