[Proposal] JUPUARY #2

[Asimsy]

Good evening Jupinauts!

Its about time we discuss the forthcoming Jupuary #2 and I want to make my own suggestion to the team that hopefully rewards the relevant corners of the JUP ecosystem that deserve allocations in this second airdrop!

I have read through some really great proposals on the forums, the research & time that has been spent on some of these pieces of work is incredible and showcases just how dedicated our community is and how important it is that this Jupuary #2 is done correctly.

I particularly enjoyed Carls, Jupwhales & Shrekts proposals and if you haven’t already, should go read them as I share a lot of similar views with each of them about how this distribution should be determined.

JUP is defined by its ability to cheaply & quickly perform swaps from 1 token to another and that was the focus of the first #jupuary back at the start of 2024. As such a do not believe it should be at the forefront of the JUP2 airdrop. I still think swap users should be rewarded but should not be the focus of the drop compared to the first one. .

The key areas that need to be considered for the JUPUARY 2 are

1. swap, limit & dca users
2. Perpetual traders
3. community
4. dedicated stakers

1 - Swappers

This allocation should be the biggest as basic feature users are the core of JUP, i suggest that an allocation of 280m tokens are attributed to this group of users. As Jupwhale remarks in his proposal the minimum threshold for this should be $100 worth of volume to cut the active wallets down from 15m to 3.9m allowing for genuine users to be rewarded.
Allocation should be tiered on volume from $100 $1000 $10,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 & $10,000,000

2 - Perpetual Traders

A new product introduced this year that is driving income for JUP & was an expensive product used by alot of JUP users in the former part of the year that should be rewarded appropriately. The product was initially quite slow & inconsistent but was improved upon throughout the year and has grown into a product many are choosing to use of popular CEXs & DEXs.
I suggest we give 120m JUP to this group of users, allocations should be tiered for users who have done over $1000 $10,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 worth of volume, I also suggest a gift to users who have done less than $1,000 but made more than 1 trade.

Shoutout to chaos labs for their weekly updates on the jup ecosystem which i read almost every week, since July they have been giving up to date details on the perp usage & its been great to read, cumulative fees from perps is UPONLY

volume has increased from 330m weekly in Q2 to almost 660m weekly in Q3, I hope this reaches 1B in Q4 and hopefully with this allocation we will see more liquidity driving to this feature as those traders are rewarded!

Jup perps will grow to be one of the biggest fee generating areas for the ecosystem in the future, rewarding users who tried this feature early on when it was riskier is important and will hopefully encourage new users & old users to try future product integrations.

3 - Community

The lifeblood of JUP & the most important reason we are able to have JUPUARY 2 due to the amazing support seen for JUP across discord/twitter/jupresear.ch, these users deserve a considerable amount of JUP as we want more tokens in the hands of users who are pushing the JUP values and attracting new users.
I suggest we allocate 150m tokens to be distributed to worthy users who have provided informative discussion, educational material, & research across all mediums available, I have named only a few in the previous paragraph.
This will probably be the biggest allocation to individual users, and is inspired by the sanctum earnestness allocation which has seen incredible success

As you can see in this table, no allocations less than 32% of earnest tokens have been claimed showcasing that earnest users who receive a bonus choose to hold their tokens instead of sacrificing them for a quick gain. If you are aligned with a protocol you will not forfeit & instead hold to gain a bonus allocation.
I suggest JUP allocate these tokens in the exact same way making them locked for 6 months but still able to be used for staking but if claimed are slashed on a pro rata basis. Allow users to log in with their twitter/jupresear.ch/youtube/medium or sign a wallet tx confirming its their accounts etc

Its important that we continue to reward active users who genuinly believe in the vision of the ecosystem and it make them even more aligned to see their efforts rewarded and will hopefully inspire a whole new wave of Jupinauts

4 - Dedicated Stakers

I suggest we give 150m tokens to all voters, but in a tiered manner to allow smaller allocated stakers the chance to get extra tokens and increase their voting power moving forward.
Tokens should be given on amount of time staked & number of proposals voted on. Rewarding participants who might have smaller capital allocations to crypto is important and if a small user has voted on every possible proposal & staked their tokens since the beginning I think it is only fair that they are rewarded outside the linear ASR distributions.

There are currently 14 proposals, I suggest all users with 10+ jup staked at the time of snapshot are considered the tiers should be 4, 8, 12 & 14 votes. This is more for smaller users who i believe are more deserving of the tokens. Further criteria could be used for this for example, $100 worth of swap volume & 3 months worth of actively on JUP.
Why? ASR is a linear approach to rewards, it allows larger stakeholders to increase their concentration of tokens whereas this approach helps the smaller users who have the same dedicated grow their balance and further increase their power within the ecosystem.

Thanks for reading, any feedback will be much appreciated

[Shrekt]

This is definitely more refined and a better structured proposal than mine. Keep up with the good work and may the best proposal win!

[JUPWhale]

Hi @Asimsy thanks for your contribution and overall it looks like a decent proposal. Without going too much in depth, or repeating to much from my own proposal, I’ll provide a few remarks.

• It would be problematic to add a 3 month minimum usage requirement to any of the Jupiter features. The time between the November snapshot and the January airdrop already provides a similar time gap.

  • The main issue with this point is that it would arbitrarily and unfairly exclude users who became active on Solana and/or Jupiter only recently.
  • Furthermore there are much better ways of doing deduplication and anti-Sybil, in addition to the weeding out of 11,361,557 low volume wallets with less than < $100 trading volume.

• For DAO / JUP Stakers it makes most sense to airdrop them linearly, according to their financial contribution, since the amounts are not trading volume but actual JUP bought and staked. The thing you’re proposing for the DAO allocation is quite complex to understand and/or to implement.

  • Although it is needed to put tiers on trading volume, JLP and Staked JUP can be done linearly as @BTC and others have pointed out.
  • In addition to Staked JUP and JLP, Jupiter perps volume could also be awarded linearly as high fees prevent any airdrop farming at the higher volume levels.
  • I’m not sure about radically tiering the airdrop to JUP stakers by amount of votes given, as this also disadvantages with hundreds of percents. A slighter percentage increase of decrease based on number of votes might be more fair.
  • I think 150 Million is really stretching it and almost over the top. It would give an average of 337 JUP per 1000 JUP staked. Someone with 1 Million JUP staked would get 337,000 JUP. If you tier it in the benefit of smaller stakers, the percentage airdrop relative to the % staked becomes even greater.

• Trading volume deserves at least 50% of the Jupuary allocation (65% in my proposal), as Jupiter is first and foremost a platform for trading tokens on Solana in a decentralised way. I’ve elaborated on the reasons for this in multiple posts, but below is a summary of the most important reasons:

@JUPWhale

Trading volume and user count / onboarding is and will always be the most important metric for any cryptocurrency exchange, centralised or decentralised.

Trading is something that every Jupiter user does. That’s how the average memecoin degen is onboarded onto Jupiter, by doing some memecoin swaps. That’s why there are 3,885,443 users with $100+ volume and 1,419,121 users in the $1,000 - $10,000 trading volume tier.

Most people use Jupiter to swap memecoins, while only around ~ 5% - 10% of users utilise the more advanced features of the Jupiverse.

Jupuary is an opportunity to engage these millions of regular users, and to concert them to the Jupiverse with all it’s options like JUP, JLP liquidity providing, JupSOL, advance trading features, DAO / Staking JUP, Perpetual contracts etc.

The volume tiers help identify which users are more valuable and contribute more to the trading volume. It would be irrational to further reduce volume-based allocation. Although trading volume tiers will have less focus in round 2 compared to round 1, they deserve an important role in the Jupuary airdrop [as trading digital assets is the main function used by most users].

We need a balanced community-refined distribution proposal that is inclusive and comprehensive - providing sufficient decentralisation and distribution of JUP. With one or two small corrections, I think your proposal provides a valid alternative perspective and opinion next to my proposal.

Your proposal is decent and provides interesting ideas for the team! Although I think we can allocate at least 65% for the 1,419,121 to 3,885,443 regular traders. Good to see that you used the same volume tiers. There’s no need to change that as they cover the user base in a good way to include all genuine users. In regards to JUP Stakers I think it is best done linear, and 70M - 100M should be more than sufficient providing them with 15.9% - 22.7% more tokens.

Overall there’s nothing wrong with this proposal - except for the arbitrarily and unnecessary exclusion of genuine new users based on some time minimum of 3 months. There are much better was to tackle gaming the system with deduplication / anti-Sybil and < $100 volume exclusion.

[BGJ]

tiered allocations for stakers is nonsense.

Also my voting wallet is dedicated for voting only. No volume.

[Asimsy]

@JUPWhale

t would be problematic to add a 3 month minimum usage requirement to any of the Jupiter features. The time between the November snapshot and the January airdrop already provides a similar time gap.

Agreed, I forgot the snapshot duration was only 12 months, i was looking for an easy elegent way to disregard sybil but im sure there are better ways to weed them out.

@JUPWhale

Stakers it makes most sense to airdrop them linearly,

The reason i disagree with this is because we have the ASR which provide tokens in a linear way, the purpose of my distribution mechanism is to wholly enlarge the stakes of smaller capital allocated user who have voted on every proposal and such deserve more allocation.

@JUPWhale

Trading volume deserves at least 50% of the Jupuary allocation

I don’t believe this to be true, JUP is no longer just a swapping protocol, it has lots of extra features, perps are a great example that draw in new income for the DAO but importantly the feature was messy/slow when it was introduced and it cost me significant $$ to use but i wanted to provide liq & test out the feature regardless. User who take risks on new feature within jup should be rewarded in the jupuary allocation more than the risk free feature such as swapping.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I think we fundamentally diverge when it comes to swap volume users being the main benefactors of this jup allocation. The ecosystem has grown and is no longer fully defined by that and I think other areas of the ecosystem need rewarding especially the community, its a very gamable element of JUP and as such should not get most (50%+)of the allocation

[Asimsy]

The idea is that smaller capital allocators can get a more meaningful voting power

[JUPWhale]

As my proposal started with researching and analysing the data it became clear that swap volume is the biggest usage of Jupiter, and commands the largest allocation percentage.

Regular trading represents 96% - 99% of Jupiter users compared to 1% - 4% for other functions of Jupiter. When you look deeper into the data, you might reach the same conclusion.

Total swap trader: 15,650,277 traders

• 100% of Jupiter users (75.2% low volume < $100)

Traders with $100+ volume: 3,885,443 users

• 24.8% of Jupiter users (with trading volume $100+)

Traders with $1,000+ volume: 2,302,243 users
(includes all $1,000+ tiers until the $10M+ tier)

• 14.7% of Jupiter users

All JUP stakers including many 0.1 JUP’s: 622,092

• 4% of all Jupiter users

JUP stakers with $50+ staked: ~ 300,000

• 1.9% of all Jupiter users

Jupiter perpetual traders: 233,803
(not yet filtered down / tiered on volume)

• 1.5% of all Jupiter users

Jupiter Discord Community: ~ 156,126
(not yet filtered down to authentic contributors)

• 1% of all Jupiter users

Jupresear.ch Forum members: 17,280
(not yet filtered down to authentic contributors)

• 0.1% of all Jupiter users

As you can see, most of the categories in this proposal only represent 1% - 4% of Jupiter users, whereas regular traders on Jupiter represent 96% - 99%.

It is simply not fair, not inclusive and not good for distribution and decentralisation to put 60% of the 700M JUP into the hands of the top 1% - 4% Jupiter users only, and distribute only 40% to the main 3,885,443 users.

For an inclusive and fairly distributed airdrop to all genuine users, the largest allocation would have to go to the 2,302,243 up to 3,885,443 users who are using Jupiter for it’s main purpose, which is DEX trading Solana based tokens. It also provides the broadest distribution for JUP.

[JUPWhale]

I think the idea is good to give attention to the other functions of the Jupiverse, as I did in my proposal assigning it a 35% allocation. The allocation has to be relative to the user count and the contribution. If you would calculate the airdrop amount per user for each categorie (as I did in my proposal) and as the team would have to do, you would see that it’s out of balance.

If you allocate 60% to just 1% - 4% of users and 40% to 96% to 99% of users, you’re going to get unbalance. Some people would get a crazy high airdrop, maybe including ourselves because we’re discussing on Jupresearch forum (let’s divide that 150,000,000 JUP allocation!) but the regular trader would get near to nothing. Try running some of the numbers of allocation per person and it becomes more clear. I have provided some more detailed numbers here:

JUPUARY #2 proposal

As my proposal started with researching and analysing the data it became clear that swap volume is the biggest usage of Jupiter, and commands the largest allocation percentage. Regular trading represents 96% - 99% of Jupiter users compared to 1% - 4% for other functions of Jupiter. When you look deeper into the data, you might reach the same conclusion. Total swap trader: 15,650,277 traders 100% of Jupiter users (75.2% low volume < $100) Traders with $100+ volume: 3,885,443 users 24.8% of…

[OrangoRosa]

I read a lot of posts about the possible future airdrop. I agree on some basic concepts (exclude those with less than 100$ traded or less than 10 JUP staked for instance), but IMO the starting point should be to define what will be the goal of the airdrop. To focus on traders? On contributors? On stakers?
Many say that traders created value (true), but creators also did (by onboarding or strengthening believing) and stakers as well (less tokens traded helped for sure in keeping the price). Some of them brought more value? Questionable, but everyone has one’s legit opinion.
It stays that if we don’t define precisely the goal it can’t be held any meaningful discussion about allocations.
My 2 JUP

[BGJ]

I agree with idea in term of proposals voted.
Someone with 10k JUP staked who had score 14/14 should be more rewarded, than someone who deposited 140k JUP today and voted on 1 proposal.

But you cant reward person with 10k staked and 14/14 same as someone with 140k and 14/14.

In these terms it is nonsense and its really unfair to bigger stakers. This would result in increasing number of voting wallets - not number of voters.

[Jeanlucbb0]

Overall very much in agreement with this proposal.

Appreciate the distinction in tiering the staking allocation vs in the ASR rewards which is linear. Strongly feel any future Jupuary allocation should avoid even to a small degree being an ASR 2.0.

Tiering a number of votes also seems an interesting way of rewarding smaller users and further decentralizing the tokens + creating broad community good will.

The mention of the Sanctum earnestness allocation (which I think generally is considered to be a success) gives a good baseline of how to potentially allocate here. Personally though, I think the total may be slightly high and would put this around the 120m mark and up the perpetuals allo to 150m.

Aside from that, broadly agree with the tiers listed for perpetuals trading, a million in perps volume could easily be thousands in fees and makes sense as a top tier. As this is expensive in terms of fees and was often inconsistent to begin with I think, I see this as a core part of the Jupiter at this point and going forward as being a one stop shop. Also an important revenue generator.

I know you didn’t mention this, but I would strongly be against linearly allocating to perps (and swaps) and see linear allocation broadly as a reason behind much of the broader community disappointment in recent drops across all of Solana and Ethereum.

Because of this I would even take a little from the swap pile and add here. There is a natural sybil buster factor to perps as the fees are comparatively high compared to swaps.

Final small disagreement, I think to distinguish from the prior drop when activity was much lower and Solana itself much less in valuation, a base threshold in swaps ought to be $1000, not $100. Especially when looking at the 15m total wallet numbers at this point. Agree that the maximum tier should be 10 million to distinguish from the changes relative to the period of the first drop.

I saw that JUPWhale disagreed, but ultimately I am in strong agreeance with the 3 month active on Jup as a base criteria. Sybils aren’t only playing with $5-10 at this point, substantial numbers will be given a slice of the pie without this. The tradeoff is of course a happy surprise for many new users, albeit with the wallet numbers currently I think the tradeoff is worth it to boost the average allocation and avoid chucking peanuts.

I’d also mention, a small slice of the pie for JUP and JLP holders might be worth it. Maybe a small amount cut from community engagement allo (which I see as quite large) to allocate here.

[Asimsy]

@Jeanlucbb0

. Personally though, I think the total may be slightly high and would put this around the 120m mark and up the perpetuals allo to 150m

Thanks for the reply, I actually debated these allocations a lot and considered swapping the two, I just feel like community should be valued higher as their output is more important the perp users

[Asimsy]

@BGJ

n these terms it is nonsense and its really unfair to bigger stakers.

ASR rewards have been hugely favourable to big stakers, the purpose of this allocation is to help increase the voting power for the smaller dedicated staker base

[NightOwl]

@Asimsy

Tokens should be given on amount of time staked & number of proposals voted on. Rewarding participants who might have smaller capital allocations to crypto is important and if a small user has voted on every possible proposal & staked their tokens since the beginning I think it is only fair that they are rewarded outside the linear ASR distributions.

There are currently 14 proposals, I suggest all

I really and strongly support what you highlighted here…
They can apply minimum of 4 or 5 votes to qualify for the drop at least a dedicated Dao should meet up with this criteria.

[BGJ]

and where is problem? Everyone had same chance. Someone took his chance with size and you saying its bad?

You want to reward shrimps more even when they did less?

BTW: I am not whale by any means. But your approach “tax the rich” sounds awful to me and I’ll never vote for something like this.

[Asimsy]

Not sure how im taxing any rich participants from this proposal, swappers are getting an allocation but allocations towards important areas of the ecosystem make more sense than further rewarding swap users.

Forgive me if i have misinterpreted what you are saying, but maybe your anger is alligned with the final point about stakers. The whole ethos behind that allocation is to reward smaller stakers and to allow them to get a larger stake in the jup ecosystem, additionally larger stakers who have voted on all proposals will also get the exact same allocation. ASR more than rewards larger stakers by offering almost 50% yield annually on their staked balances so the argument that JUP hasnt rewarded them enough is frankly unconvincing, the purpose of this allocation is to increase the voting power of smaller, dedicated users a linear approach just further centralises tokens in the hands of larger stakers which is fulfilled more than enough by ASR this approach increase the voting power of a the smaller staking balance users which I believe is important for decentralising the ecosystem further

[Asimsy]

I think 4 is more than fair, it allows users who joined the DAO later to atleast get some further allocation, 4 votes ago was Aug 23 which means if you joined the DAO only 10 weeks ago you will be entitled to some form of allocation

[JUPWhale]

In summary the purpose of Jupuary round #2 Airdrop is:

• Bringing 40% (now 28.85%) of the 10B JUP token supply into circulation

• Distributing JUP to the millions of Jupiter users in a decentralised fashion

• Incentivising (not rewarding) existing users to engage more with Jupiter

• Guerilla marketing method to create huge hype and (social)media attention

@OrangoRosa

IMO the starting point should be to define what will be the goal of the airdrop. To focus on traders? On contributors? On stakers?

It has been discussed a fair bit:

When the Jupiter team mentioned Jupuary they always emphasised a broad inclusive growth oriented distribution to the millions of Jupiter users.

Like community member @Rico_JHE stated:

@Rico_JHE

That is the purpose of Jupuary to get JUP into the hands of more people.

Jupuary is meant to distribute JUP to the community of Jupiter users.

There is 10B JUP (part being burned now). Just 1.35B is in circulation so far.

And in my own words:

@JUPWhale

The goal of Jupuary is to bring 40% (28.85% after the burn and unclaimed JUP) of total JUP into circulation by fairly distributing it among the community of Jupiter users and stakeholders.

785 Million (7.85% of JUP supply) was successfully brought into circulation in round 1, with the 215M unclaimed JUP going to reward JUP stakers (ASR).

Some stakers are claiming: ‘‘You can also just buy JUP’’. Sure they can but that has nothing to do with the point of the distributing 40% (28.85% after the burn) JUP according to the tokenomics - through 4 (or 3) rounds of Jupuary.

The goal of Jupuary is to put JUP into the hands of legitimate Jupiter users, who may or may not yet be JUP holders.

@JUPWhale

Jupuary is not a risk-compensation for staking JUP.

Jupuary is not a compensation for using Jupiter in any form or way.

It is completely beside the point to discuss who deserves more JUP.

Jupuary a community distribution method for the new JUP token.

Furthermore Jupuary is used to incentivise (not reward) platform usage.

Another side-goal or result of Jupiter is to attract millions of new users to Jupiter through massive hype and (social)media attention.

@OrangoRosa

Many say that traders created value (true), but creators also did (by onboarding or strengthening believing) and stakers as well (less tokens traded helped for sure in keeping the price).

That’s why I’m proposing a balanced distribution to the DAO / JUP Stakers, Community contributors, New Feature Users, Perpetual Traders, JLP holders, $10M+ tier, $1M - $10M tier, $100K - $1M tier, $10K - $100K tier, $1K - $10K tier, $100+ tier.

[Asimsy]

We’re going in circles and im fully aware of the purpose of JUP & we diverge on where we think allocation should go. Swap uers are crucial but not as important in my opinion for jupuary 2, swap users ( including dca/limit/va ) users should get an allocation of less than 50% and larger allocation deservingly should go to DAO/perp users & the wider community as this year has seen important growth in all these areas and should continue growth in these areas will be further achieved if they are rewarded accordingly. We need more users thinking about ways for the protocol to grow and break into the mainstream, not basic swap users. I can’t stress this enough.

[Simpelcadet]

normal swap usage including limit/dca should be considered in that allocation, seperate allocation for perp usage as its fundamentally different and

@Asimsy

A new product introduced this year that is driving income for JUP & was an expensive product used by alot of JUP users in the former part of the year that should be rewarded appropriately. The product was initially quite slow & inconsistent but was improved upon throughout the year and has grown into a product many are choosing to use of popular CEXs & DEXs.

as stated by user asimsy it was not that great when it was released and was not wroth using for a long time compared to other dexs out there so those users who took the risk should be rewarded more imo