The Silent Loop: Buybacks, Unlocks, litter.box and the Search for Purpose in $JUP

General
1

The Silent Loop: Buybacks, Unlocks, and the Search for Purpose in $JUP

The Jupiter ecosystem is expanding rapidly. Trading volumes are up, product offerings are evolving, and the team is laying the groundwork for JupNet, a cross-chain protocol that could transform how liquidity is accessed across the crypto world. From a product and infrastructure perspective, things look promising. But beneath this wave of innovation lies a deeper issue: the $JUP token, which should be at the heart of this entire ecosystem, remains functionally hollow. It carries symbolic importance and speculative momentum—but it lacks substance.

It’s time to say it clearly and with urgency: $JUP currently has no essential role in the protocol it represents. You don’t need it to interact with Jupiter. You don’t need it to unlock core platform capabilities, earn real yield, or meaningfully influence governance. Instead, $JUP exists in a performative limbo—used in narratives, excluded from function. This is a profound mismatch between the token’s stated purpose and its actual utility.

A Token Without a Role

Tokens are supposed to be the economic engine of protocols. They should power usage, incentivize alignment, and allow holders to participate meaningfully in success. In the case of $JUP, none of these functions are fulfilled. Unlike SOL, which is used for every transaction on the Solana blockchain and secures the network through staking, or ETH, which is essential for gas fees and contract execution, $JUP is entirely optional. You can use Jupiter’s entire product suite without ever touching it.

There are no transaction fee discounts. No access to advanced features. No claim on revenue. No real ownership. Even the act of staking $JUP provides no yield tied to Jupiter’s performance—only recycled JUP tokens, creating a loop where users are rewarded with more of the same, drawn from a reserve, without anchoring to any real economic activity.

This isn’t just an absence of utility—it’s a design flaw. And when compared to other tokens in the space:

  • Bitcoin (BTC) has absolute scarcity and massive adoption as a digital store of value.
  • Ethereum (ETH) enables smart contract logic and features fee-burning to balance inflation.
  • Solana (SOL) is essential for all actions on the chain and ties staking directly to network health.

$JUP, by contrast, represents belief without function. It’s a token adjacent to the protocol, not integrated within it. That separation is not just inefficient—it’s dangerous for long-term credibility.

The Silent Loop: Litterbox Buybacks vs. Scheduled Unlocks

The clearest example of Jupiter’s token strategy is the Litterbox buyback mechanism. Fifty percent of the protocol’s revenue is used to purchase JUP on the open market, and those tokens are then locked for three years. The structure is elegant at first glance. But when matched against the monthly unlocks for Mercurial (MER) stakeholders—approximately 14.58 million JUP—it becomes clear what’s really happening.

Litterbox is currently buying back approximately 14.97 million JUP per month. That’s an almost one-to-one offset to the amount of JUP entering circulation through MER vesting. Whether by chance or careful engineering, the system appears designed to absorb this specific supply increase without drawing attention to its inflationary pressure.

But here’s the problem: the tokens aren’t being burned. They’re locked. That means they remain in the system. In three years, they’ll return to circulation as grants, team compensation, or strategic spending. The result is a deferral of dilution—not its resolution. This is not a deflationary mechanism—it’s a recycling loop. Emissions go out via unlocks, come back through buybacks, and are eventually emitted again.

What this reveals is a broader pattern: Jupiter is prioritizing optics over architecture. The Litterbox feels like value creation, but under scrutiny, it’s a delay tactic.

The Illusion of Governance

Governance was supposed to be the primary use case for $JUP. It was pitched as a way for the community to shape Jupiter’s evolution, control emissions, and make meaningful decisions. In practice, this promise has yet to be realized.

The DAO’s influence is superficial. Most proposals are drafted by the team, framed with tight parameters, and presented with limited alternatives. The infamous 2030 lock-in vote, which saw Meow request a 220M JUP bonus from the community treasury, is a perfect example. The community wasn’t invited to design the structure—it was given two options: accept or reject.

Even today, there is no clear path for community-generated proposals to reach quorum without backing from the team. DAO working groups, while active, are funded through structures controlled by the same leadership. And most strategic moves, including JupNet, are introduced to the community after key decisions have already been made. The community watches the roadmap unfold on social media—not through the DAO.

This isn’t decentralization. It’s choreography. And it leaves $JUP holders in a paradox: they stake a token for governance that gives them no real power.

Missing Utility: Half-Delivered Promises

The team is not blind to this problem. They’ve tried. Initiatives like Active Staking Rewards (ASR), the 3 billion token burn, and the Litterbox Trust were all introduced to address criticism and introduce perceived value to JUP. But each has fundamental flaws:

  • ASR rewards voters with more JUP, diluting the pool and offering no real yield.
  • The Burn cut supply from 10B to 7B—but didn’t change the fact that 7B tokens still exist and are unlocking over time.
  • Litterbox buys tokens but does not remove them from future circulation, merely postponing their impact.

None of these programs change the structural reality that JUP is not required to use Jupiter, not tied to its revenue, and not positioned as a value accrual asset.

And while JupNet has been hinted at as a possible inflection point—where JUP might gain deeper utility—details remain vague. Will users need JUP to transact or stake on JupNet? Will governance play a serious role in its development? As of now, there is no clear roadmap or DAO-led planning around it. The most important piece of Jupiter’s future is still being built behind closed doors.

Rethinking the DAO: Governance or Applause?

After listening to Planetary Call #44, it’s fair to ask: are we building a DAO, or a cheer squad? The team’s tone was upbeat, clever, and charismatic. That’s fine—charisma can move communities. But behind the light-hearted “cash feed” banter and DAO-as-teenager metaphors, one gets the sense that Jupiter’s governance is being treated more like a mood than a mechanism.

The Nigerian community was praised. New marketing groups were announced. Content creators were encouraged to spread the word. Bounties and memes were celebrated. But not once did we hear serious discussion about the core problem: the JUP token still lacks utility, and the DAO lacks authorship over anything that matters.

So maybe this isn’t a DAO in the traditional sense. Maybe what Jupiter needs isn’t a governance engine—it’s a good vibes committee. A decentralized marketing wing that rallies behind every feature shipped by the core team. If that’s the model, fine. But then let’s stop pretending we’re “co-building.” Because right now, the structure rewards visibility, not voice—and applauding cats, not challenging ones.

A Community Waiting to Build

This critique isn’t rooted in cynicism—it’s born of frustration. Jupiter has attracted one of the most capable communities in DeFi. We have builders, researchers, product designers, analysts, memers, and culture leaders ready to contribute. But instead of tapping into that braintrust, the team continues to build in isolation, issuing curated updates and expecting applause.

If we truly believe in decentralization, the DAO must be more than decoration. It must be a co-author of the strategy. Working groups should be tasked with drafting tokenomics reforms. JUP holders should have real input on how revenue is used and how emissions are scheduled. JupNet’s token design should be informed by a wide range of contributors—not just those closest to the founders.

At its best, Jupiter is a movement. But a movement can’t run on narratives and memes alone. It needs mechanisms. It needs participation. It needs trust.

A Missing Middle: Hard Truths and Constructive Paths Forward

Let’s pause here and acknowledge something uncomfortable: some of the blame lies not only with the team, but also with the rest of us who believed too quickly, too easily. We, the community, accepted governance theater for governance power. We cheered burns and buybacks without interrogating what they meant. We mistook clever coordination for alignment.

But belief is not a strategy. Nor is narrative. Nor is trust in the absence of transparency.

What’s missing from Jupiter is not just token utility—it’s a process for shared direction. The team builds in stealth, then expects the community to rubber-stamp the outcome. We need to invert this. Instead of “Here’s what we’ve done,” the team should ask: “What should we do, together?”

Solutions aren’t elusive—they’re just uncomfortable:

  • Create a dedicated working group on token utility, empowered to propose protocol-level integrations of JUP. Not just ASR 2.0, but actual use cases: fee discounts, staking-as-access, DAO-controlled grants.
  • Release a transparent roadmap for JupNet that explicitly states JUP’s intended role—and invite the community to refine it.
  • Introduce a “DAO-first” governance experiment—allow the community to draft and vote on one meaningful proposal per quarter with guaranteed implementation, if passed.

DAO apathy is not the cause of centralization. It is its consequence. Fix the structure, and participation will follow. Treat the DAO like an experiment in legitimacy—not a dashboard with toggles—and watch what happens.

Open Questions for the Team

As we reflect on the trajectory of Jupiter and $JUP, a few unresolved questions demand answers. These are not rhetorical. They are strategic forks in the road. We invite you to consider them seriously:

  1. If JUP is not required to use the protocol, not tied to fees, and not backed by yield—what exactly is it for?
  2. Why hasn’t the team committed to a roadmap where JUP becomes the native asset of JupNet? If not JUP, then what token will capture that value?
  3. Why is the Litterbox not governed by the DAO? Who controls how the bought-back tokens are eventually reintroduced?
  4. What mechanism exists today for a community member to bring a major proposal to a binding vote without team approval? If none, when will that change?
  5. Are you willing to commit to a regular, public Q&A where DAO members can pose direct questions on tokenomics, treasury usage, and future utility designs? Maybe we could have a space where people submit their questions over 1–2 days, and the DAO uses voting wallets to elevate the top 5–10 questions that the team must publicly answer?
  6. Do you believe the community is intellectually and creatively capable of co-designing JupNet’s token layer? If yes—why haven’t we been invited to the table yet?

Let these questions rattle, provoke, and inspire action. Because if they go unanswered, the silence will speak volumes.

Conclusion: Break the Loop, Build the Future

The Litterbox loop is not a solution—it’s a stalling mechanism. It props up the token’s optics while delaying the core question: what is JUP actually for? Right now, the answer is: not much. And that must change.

A credible path forward begins with:

  • Making JUP essential to Jupiter’s operations (e.g. staking, fees, access)
  • Sharing protocol revenues with stakers or long-term holders
  • Embedding governance into real strategic decisions
  • Opening up tokenomics discussions to community leaders and developers

JUP cannot remain a decorative governance token while Jupiter builds billion-dollar infrastructure. It must evolve into a value-holding asset, a tool of influence, and a mechanism for community reward.

To the team: your product execution is world-class. Your communication is passionate. But your decentralization strategy is incomplete. If this community is truly part of the journey, then bring us into the cockpit—not as passengers, but as co-pilots.

Don’t just build the future.
Build it with us.
@ihateoranges

8 Likes
2

My friend, it has become a routine to read the truths and hard facts of your essays.
It saddens me that the team, particularly @Kash and @meow , will shrug off these questions, see them as “attacks” or “fud”.

I really really admire your patience. I stopped writing long posts here long ago.

I also stopped attending the rally calls, they’re nothing burger. They’re great for product dev but you won’t be excepting talks about Jup the token. It’s their red herring.

A month or so ago, there was a call where many challenged @meow on why the token is so messed up, and he was silent, literally, he said “I’ll think about that”, a month ago!

There are many big brains who left this forum, discord because this tone deaf from the team has just become off putting.

Just give it a few days and you’ll see these two guys responses ;-).

Ps: do keep your sanity, this token isn’t worth fighting for anymore.

3 Likes
3

Appreciate your work and alignment - I’ve read both of your posts and they sharpen a lot of what’s missing in the current JUP narrative. I’m fighting for a change of direction here not because I enjoy the fight, but because without it, I’m likely out. Too many red flags - the 220M bonus, airdrops as default growth, a DAO without real agency. Right now, I’m only still here because I’m hoping for either a real course correction, or a bull market big enough to carry the token back to my entry point despite all the sell pressure. If neither happens, I don’t see a future here. Glad you’re speaking up - we need more pressure, not more applause

5 Likes
4

Thank you for taking the time to write all of this out. It’s thorough, well said, and presented eloquently. I too await appropriate answers to these questions from the team.

2 Likes
5

If more rewards aren’t giving to people who stake and participate in decision making where did you want the jup to go and some of people that staked jup are already at loss because of recent dramas, how the you want them to recover from their losses if not for the ASR, those token needs to be added to the circulating supply because most of this tokens for ASR are unclaimed tokens for first jupnuary event they are already in the circulation.

The 3B burn aren’t even in the circulation but let assume they decides to release it to the market, another more dilution again. Where did you want all this tokens to go did you want them to permanently burn ?
Or are you saying 7 billions supply is too much for total supply?

Seems you want everything to be removed from circulating supply so everyone of us can fight over 1jup maybe team should develop a function that all of us should start permanently burning Jup Token in our wallet for scarcity.

1 Like
6

I want to be super clear about where I’m coming from, because this isn’t about tribalism, “price go up,” or some anti-team sentiment.

At the heart of it, my concern is simple: we have a token — $JUP — that hundreds of thousands of people bought into, staked, or earned, and it still lacks a meaningful role. Not just in terms of speculative upside, but in terms of real utility, real governance power, and real connection to the value Jupiter is creating.

The frustrating part is that while the team is shipping (and yes, they deserve credit for that), we’re also watching a slow but steady drip of JUP unlocks into the market — whether via team, MER, community programs, or emissions — with no corresponding increase in utility or demand drivers to support the token. It’s dilution without alignment. And that’s not sustainable.

You mentioned the DAO, ASR, and voting — and I get that those are signs of progress. But right now, JUP’s governance is reactive. We vote on proposals the team initiates. There’s still no clear on-chain process for community-originated proposals, no way to shape product or token strategy, and very limited impact from staking beyond ASR, which itself is just more JUP being recycled.

So what I’m asking for — what I think many holders feel silently — is not just clearer comms or roadmap updates. It’s a structural alignment between the token, the DAO, and the protocol’s success.

If Jupiter generates fees, how does JUP benefit?

If the community grows, how does JUP reflect that value?

If governance is core, why don’t we shape more than just the treasury spend?

Right now, the value created accrues around JUP, not through it.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the asset we’ve all bought, staked, and voted with becomes more than a decorative badge. That’s not FUD. That’s just calling for integrity in token design — and a clearer, stronger connection between the project’s success and the community’s stake in it.

3 Likes
7

I think current price of jup is the issue now, what can you suggest that will drive the price of Jup up ?

1 Like
8

Fair question. The current price reflects real issues — not just the market. SOL is taking off while JUP lags, and that’s because:

What’s pushing price down:
– Continuous unlocks = steady sell pressure
– No strong utility: staking gives ASR, but no fee discounts, no revenue share
– Narrative drift: we were sold a core ecosystem token, but it behaves like a governance sidekick

What could push price up:
– Real utility: fee discounts, real yield, staking tiers
– Transparent, recurring buybacks
– DAO-funded demand drivers (tools, affiliate programs, token-gated features)
– Clearer strategy: is JUP core or cosmetic?

Until utility meets supply, price will keep struggling. Curious what you’d prioritize first.

1 Like
9

With what had read you have still not provide solid solution to existing problem, you can’t compare sol to jup, Sol is a Blockchain Token while jup is just an aggregator Token maybe if jup should build theirs Blockchain but let wait what will happen on omnichain.
I will like to know more about what you mean by staking tie compare to ASR, rainfi staking jup process.

1 Like
10

To be honest, I’m not sure what conversation you’ve been reading — because I’ve laid out multiple clear issues and proposed solutions across this thread.

I’ve talked about: – The steady dilution from unlocks without corresponding demand
– The lack of utility for JUP beyond ASR
– The absence of direct value accrual mechanisms like fee discounts, yield, or revenue share
– And the need for strategic clarity on whether JUP is a core protocol asset or just a community badge

If you still think I’ve “not provided a solid solution,” then I don’t think I can help you — and I genuinely tried.

As for comparing SOL to JUP: of course they’re different. But SOL’s price is rising because it has clear demand drivers and aligned incentives. If JUP is “just an aggregator token,” then that’s the real problem — because it wasn’t sold to us that way. It was meant to be more. That’s the entire point.

Good luck out there.

3 Likes
11

The core issue raised is that the $JUP token lacks real utility within the Jupiter ecosystem. It is not required for using the protocol, doesn’t provide access to exclusive features, isn’t tied to protocol revenue, and offers no meaningful governance power. Despite initiatives like buybacks and staking rewards, these mechanisms are criticized as superficial, failing to create actual economic value or decentralized influence for token holders. The article argues that without integrating $JUP into the protocol’s core operations, governance, and revenue structures, the token remains symbolically important but functionally hollow.

1 Like
12

Community raised issue
JUP needs a real role in the Jupiter protocol Governance must become a real decision-making tool and the token must be an integral part of economic operations not just a speculative asset

The critical issues highlighted by users are clear
The Litterbox system postpones the problem without solving it
JUP is not necessary to operate on Jupiter nor is it linked to real revenues
DAO governance has a limited role and many key decisions are made without real community involvement

This proposal offers a concrete solution that can change the history of crypto by creating a sustainable economy and giving real utility to JUP

NFT Tournaments and Jupiter Monetization Proposal

Objective
Introduce a system of NFT-based tournaments with a direct revenue model involving the community and making JUP central to economic operations

Key points
Tournaments with open participation and direct monetization
Integrated NFT system with purchases, sales and collections
Internal marketplace for transactions and sales fees
Sponsors and partnerships to attract investments external
Active DAO governance to allow the community to influence decisions

Economic potential
This proposal has the potential to revolutionize the crypto economy by generating direct revenue and ensuring a key role for JUP

With one million players the system could generate over fifty million dollars for each tournament through sponsored NFT registrations and transaction fees

Impact on Jupiter’s credibility
JUP becomes fundamental to the economic operations of the system
The project gains global visibility by attracting sponsors and crypto companies
Integration with NFTs and tournaments expands the Jupiter ecosystem in the gaming and blockchain sector

Call to the community your vote counts
To make this proposal a reality we need the support of users If you support the idea we ask that it be voted on by the DAO to make the voice of the community heard
Jupiter has the opportunity to create something revolutionary Now is the time to make a difference.

3 Likes
13

Day 5 and still no answer @meow @Kash @9yointern,
Pinged on discord, ignored, silence speaks volumes :slight_smile:

3 Likes
14

ser there’s a lot going on across many different channels and this is a very long post. i already started drafting a response, but please have some empathy.

will respond here tomorrow

3 Likes
15

Ser do not give us a typical rebuttal essay like last time calling this fud, and starting with “the team is doing its best…”. If your essay revolves around doubling down on token governance and asking us to be patient (LOL) for 3y+ until the team decides which utility to bring to the token, it’ll clearly show that there’s 0 understanding between what the team want and the community

1 Like
16

hey hey - thanks for the patience. was super slammed with Crossroads and Token2049 back to back.

to respond to a few of your points:

re: JUP is not like BTC, ETH, or SOL.
This is partially true, but not fully.

BTC, as you points out, has scarcity. So does JUP, in the sense that (unlike ETH and SOL) it has a fixed supply. Ofc JUP will not be a store of value in the same way as BTC, though I think it’s interesting to think about how JUP can become more of a community currency into the future.

ETH and SOL are Gas Tokens, which ofc are fundamentally different than non-gas tokens like JUP.

JUP falls into the category with most other altcoins, where it is neither a Digital Store of Value (yet) nor a gas token.

It sounds like you don’t think that the Governance + Litterbox provide enough value to the token for you to hold it - totally get it! Reasonable minds can differ.

re: Litterbox vs. Unlocks
I genuinely didn’t know that there was a match between MER vesting and Litterbox accumulation - it was definitely by chance. And further, as Jupiter revenues grow then presumably it’ll outpace MER vesting.

The hard part to swallow is when you say stuff like “Jupiter prioritizes optics over architecture”. we’re one of the very few teams investing heavily into the community, into the product, etc. it’s a bummer you feel this way given how many things we’ve tried to do to help push the space forward. i understand, obviously, that we aren’t perfect, but stuff like maligning our intentions is tough to see, ngl.

re: Tokens are being burned, they’re being locked
yup! we burned 3 billion tokens already, and feel like that’s quite substantial. we’re interested in how the tokens can be used as leverage for the community and ecosystem development.

ofc if we burned every token except one, the price would be higher.

but that’s not our game, we are not building just for the short-term price of $JUP. the interests of JUP holders are important and priortized, and we are acting in ways that we think are best for the long-term interests of holders and community members.

re: the illusion of governance
i feel like we’ve talked about this before, and i’m not quite sure how to change your mind on this.

i literally JUST talked about the importance of a clear path for community-generated proposals reaching quorum in the last DAO resolution. yes, it’s not ready yet. but i mean c’mon, we are obviously TRYING to do things the right way.

as for not having real power, idk what to tell you really. the structure of Jupuary was directly impacted by community governance, as is utilization of the DAO treasury, as are broad ideological things like the purpose of the DAO.

if you don’t feel that’s “real”, that’s fine, but again maligning our intentions (“this isn’t decentralization, its choreography”) is a bummer.

re: half-delivered promises
there is no world in which the DAO is leading planning of product implementation. if you are concerned about how we are building JupNet “behind closed doors”, that’s your right. but it is not going to change. jupnet is exceptionally complicated as a product, with many, many, many potential paths it could go through. including the DAO in the planning of the product will not only slow down the project, but lead to a “too many chefs in the kitchen” situation. if you (or any token holder) do not trust the Jupiter team to make good product decisions, that is a difference we will have to live with. the DAO should not lead product, the team should lead product.

and based on the massive majority the last DAO resolution succeeded with, it would seem that most people agree.

re: questions for the team

  1. If JUP is not required to use the protocol, not tied to fees, and not backed by yield—what exactly is it for? because of the litterbox trust, JUP holders do indeed benefit when there is revenue generated by the protocol via fees. and the token is also for governance (though we seem to differ in our opinion of how meaningful that is!)
  2. Why hasn’t the team committed to a roadmap where JUP becomes the native asset of JupNet? If not JUP, then what token will capture that value? we are not going to commit to that because we have not committed to that even internally. it’s not like we’re keeping secrets from you, we just don’t know yet.
  3. Why is the Litterbox not governed by the DAO? Who controls how the bought-back tokens are eventually reintroduced? it will be, as mentioned in the last DAO resolution.
  4. What mechanism exists today for a community member to bring a major proposal to a binding vote without team approval? If none, when will that change? it will change in the coming months, as discussed in the last DAO resolution.
  5. Are you willing to commit to a regular, public Q&A where DAO members can pose direct questions on tokenomics, treasury usage, and future utility designs? Maybe we could have a space where people submit their questions over 1–2 days, and the DAO uses voting wallets to elevate the top 5–10 questions that the team must publicly answer? no, i am not. you are welcome to join any of the public spaces that we hold, office hours, etc, but the DAO does not get the right or have the scope to decide on token utility. so there will not be a specific event based on this.
  6. Do you believe the community is intellectually and creatively capable of co-designing JupNet’s token layer? If yes—why haven’t we been invited to the table yet? there are plenty of individuals who could contribute, yes. but as a whole mass of 450,000 people, no i don’t think there’s a coherent way to activate the community at this early stage of development. in the future, possibly, but right now there are too many important technical questions that need to be resolved first.
2 Likes
17

Good respond, I think with this every doa member should know their takes and understand the process.
I know we all want to suggest opinions but it’s not okay to enforce some decisions to the team. Jup price Vs community!

1 Like
19

Thanks, Kash. I appreciate you taking the time to read and reply to my writing. I’ll keep this brief—I imagine you’re as tired of hearing from me as I am of needing to write these essays. But the fact that others continue to raise these concerns shows they are not mine alone. They’re shared by a growing number of DAO members.

What I’ve asked for is simple: real value capture for $JUP holders who believed in the vision, held through volatility, and helped fund this ecosystem with their own capital. Let’s not forget—the Jupiter team raised significant funds through token sales to regular investors. Many of us assumed JUP would become the centerpiece of a growing product suite. That assumption wasn’t based on fantasy; it was rooted in how the team, and Meow himself, consistently framed the token in their communications.

I’ve compared $JUP to other tokens that already deliver clear utility and value. JUP, by comparison, still doesn’t. That’s a glaring issue. While you said “reasonable minds differ,” that response sidesteps the real concern—and I think you know it. The DAO is structurally limited to marketing and engagement work. Meanwhile, the Litterbox feels more like a circuit breaker to avoid a collapse in token price than a meaningful long-term mechanism for delivering value to holders.

I understand there’s a broad range of stakeholders to consider. But the group that seems consistently overlooked is the one that bought and staked the token. Maybe they’re quiet on Discord or don’t post on X—but their capital helped make all of this possible. “Wen vote?” may sound tedious, but it’s often the last lever available to people trying to protect the value of what they’ve invested—USDC they exchanged for your token.

image
image1137Ă—414 79.6 KB

No value + no utility = no reason to hold $JUP.

And I wanted to hold $JUP. I love what you’re building—how the product feels and operates. I was in a top tier during the first airdrop. I sold it all initially, but then bought back more than I received. I became a believer in your message. But over time, you’ve made me lose that belief.

Yes, you burned 3 billion tokens already. But what was the reason? The stated goals were to mitigate concerns about inflation, boost community confidence, and optimize FDV to make the token more attractive to investors. Whether that was about short-term optics or long-term positioning doesn’t really matter. Long-term JUP holders care about value and utility—not symbolic gestures. I don’t want more burns. I want meaningful, structural mechanisms that tie token utility directly to the success of Jupiter products.

The MER vesting and the Litterbox both end around the same time—2030. If the Litterbox is not meant to offset unlock-related pressure, why not extend it as long as possible? If the product vision is long-term, the support mechanisms should be too.

It’s frustrating to see responses that assume I’m just looking for a short-term pump. I’m not. You’ve read my essay through a lens that makes my position easy to dismiss—while sidestepping the real concerns long-term holders are voicing. I want to be a diamond-handed holder of JUP. But you’re making that almost impossible.

I’ve watched nearly all the content you’ve published on YouTube. I love the product updates—they’re excellent. But that’s what they are: product updates. The other segment is about how contributors are promoting your products, often with joy and creativity. Meow said he wanted the community to be more than just a marketing engine. But in practice, it seems that’s all we’re allowed to be—because dealing with hundreds of thousands of stakeholders who want more than that may simply be too much.

So in the end, it doesn’t matter how much JUP or USDC you move to the DAO. It does nothing to the value of the JUP token. That money will go into marketing efforts to—yes, you guessed it—promote more of your products. Easy, simple, and cheap.

So yes—you’re trying to do things the right way, and it is working. The number of people using your products is growing. But $JUP is still drifting—like an abandoned child. And the longer this disconnect persists, the harder it will be to bring holders back into alignment with the mission. With the APR dropping, they will start to unstake and leave. From what I’ve read on Discord, it seems there are upcoming votes to distribute $JUP from the community reserves to existing core working groups, Cats of Culture, and grants.

I wonder how stakers will react when they learn about billions of new $JUP tokens hitting the market. When people realize that Solana is back at all-time highs while $JUP still struggles to regain its footing, they will start asking hard questions. What will be your answer?

We are not building just for the short-term price of $JUP.
C’mon, we are obviously TRYING to do things the right way.

$JUP falls into the category with most other altcoins, where it is neither a digital store of value (yet) nor a gas token. - And that’s the core issue we still need to solve.

5 Likes
20

Locking Jupiter for reduced trading fees is a no-brainer. There is a tipping point where value added from the reduction in possible sell-pressure is greater than the lost revenue from these reduced fees. It should go without saying that an in-depth technical analysis is required to iron out these numbers (trial working group proposal?) but this could be huge both for utility and for attracting larger players. Specifically, market makers, arbitragers and large LPs would stand to gain tremendously from scooping up large sums of JUP in order to shave off some trading fees.