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:
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.