Following the recent discussion around long-term staking rewards, I wanted to suggest a mechanism where staking yields gradually increase based on how long you’ve committed your $JUP (e.g., 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, etc.).
This could help boost long-term loyalty while avoiding mass exits at a single unlock date.
We could also visualize this with a progress bar or gamified interface — something like a “staking quest pass” or “loyalty booster” — to make the experience more engaging.
Do you think this would be technically feasible with Jupiter’s current tokenomics?
And more importantly, would this align with Jupiter’s values of community-driven growth and sustainability?
Great idea, Delavage!
Even though many have suggested this kind of structure to be implemented within the DAO, l believe the team are looking into it, if its feasible in the long run and fully aligned with the community vision.
This is a solid and well-intentioned idea — aligning staking yield with time commitment can absolutely help with reducing exit risk and encouraging long-term participation. It also opens the door for building habits and rituals around staking, which is culturally powerful.
That said, I think we should be clear-eyed about two things:
Real Yield vs. Token Dilution
If this system just gives you more JUP for staking longer, it doesn’t change the core issue: we’re still recycling tokens from the community pool without generating new value. Without a connection to protocol revenue (USDC, fees, etc.), it’s a loyalty program, not real yield. And we’ve already seen how ASR creates sell pressure over time.
Technical Feasibility ≠ Strategic Fit
Technically, sure — a time-weighted staking contract is doable. But would the team support it? Meow has been consistent: JUP is not a value accrual token. It’s meant to align belief, not distribute cashflows or perks. That’s why even buybacks go to the Litterbox, not stakers.
So we should ask: does this kind of gamified staking actually fit into the long-term vision for JUP as a “social money,” or does it risk reinforcing expectations of investment-like returns?
One middle ground might be a tiered system that unlocks community tools, voting weight, or access to governance experiments, rather than just more tokens. That aligns with the “participation = power” ethos, without overpromising financial upside.
Appreciate the idea — let’s keep refining. Alignment should feel good and do good.
Absolutely agree with your take — thanks for laying it out so clearly.
The distinction between real yield and token recycling is crucial. Without protocol revenue flowing to stakers, it’s hard to justify any staking model as truly sustainable. It risks becoming optics rather than substance, especially if it’s just more JUP being distributed with no added value behind it.
And yes, alignment with the core vision matters. Meow’s stance on JUP not being a value-capture token has been consistent, and I think that’s part of what makes this ecosystem unique. It’s not just about yield — it’s about shared conviction, participation, and long-term alignment.
That’s why I love your idea of unlocking non-financial perks instead: governance weight, access to tools, even cultural artifacts. Those kinds of incentives reinforce the social layer without drifting toward purely financial expectations.
Let’s definitely keep iterating on this. If staking becomes part of the culture — something people want to do, not just need to for yield — then it’ll truly serve its purpose.
This is such a great idea — really appreciate that you kicked off this discussion.
I think the “staking quest pass” concept is pretty inspiring — even if the rewards aren’t financial, visualizing progress and community roles could be powerful. Makes staking feel more alive.
It would also be cool to see some kind of gamified motivation not just for holding, but for growing the stake over time. Personally, something like that would push me to keep topping up my stake regularly — even without extra token rewards.
Personally, I think lock-up systems don’t really help much when it comes to controlling outflows. At the end of the day, people put their funds into a project because it offers good products, rewards, or other strong incentives. So the main focus should be on continuing to build great products and staying proactive with new innovations. The more utility there is, the more people will use it — and that’s what attracts investors.
As for the staking quest or loyalty booster idea, I actually think that’s a cool initiative for stakers. But of course, there has to be some kind of return for participants (like rewards for completing quests). That’s where the tricky part comes in — how would the reward distribution work? We already have the vote program running, which also includes rewards.
In my opinion, adding another reward-based program could end up increasing the rate of funds flowing out of the system even more.
Thank you so much — I really appreciate your thoughtful feedback!
Totally agree: even non-financial rewards can go a long way when there’s a sense of progression and purpose. The idea of staking feeling “alive” really resonates — it turns a passive action into something dynamic and community-driven.
And yes, the idea of encouraging gradual growth of one’s stake over time is super compelling. A system that rewards consistency and commitment (rather than just size or duration) could really change the game.
Would love to keep brainstorming on this with you and others!
Thanks for sharing your perspective — I think you raise some really valid points.
You’re right that the core of retention always comes down to strong utility and continuous innovation. If the product is solid and evolving, people will stay, with or without lockups.
That said, I see the “staking quest” not so much as a way to prevent outflows, but more as a cultural and engagement tool — something that builds emotional connection and a sense of progression within the community. Think of it as a soft layer on top of the protocol, not a replacement for fundamentals.
But I agree — any kind of reward system has to be carefully thought out, especially to avoid diluting token value or overlapping with existing initiatives like the vote rewards. Maybe there’s room for a non-token-based model (titles, badges, Discord roles, exclusive access, etc.) that could add value without adding pressure on the treasury?
If the rewards are tied to specific roles or positions on the Discord server, I’m all for it. To make it even more engaging, we could consider allocating some rewards to those role holders during the next Jupuary if we end up running it again next year.
It’s a good way to keep participants motivated while also helping manage expenses more efficiently.
Thanks so much — I’m really glad my thoughts resonated with you!
I’d be happy to keep brainstorming with you and others — it’s an exciting direction to explore together.
One thing that feels important to keep in mind is finding the right balance: making it fun and engaging without turning it into a routine “obligation” that ends up feeling discouraging if someone slips out of their usual rhythm of topping up or holding $JUP.
If the system stays light, encouraging, and forgiving, I think it could become a really positive force for long-term participation.
Yes, I totally get what you mean — and I love that idea!
Tying Discord roles to future reward events like Jupuary sounds like a smart and fun way to keep people engaged over the long term, without constantly tapping into the treasury.
It creates a sense of continuity and purpose — like you’re building towards something bigger with the community.
Would definitely be excited to see something like that take shape!
That balance is key: the system should inspire and reward consistency, but never punish those who need to step back for a bit. Keeping it light, optional, and uplifting would make it feel more like a community journey than a rigid commitment.
I love the idea of participation being encouraged, not enforced. That’s exactly the kind of culture that could make Jupiter even more welcoming and sustainable long-term.