Burning a couple of hundred millions will not solve the PA of the token at all. We will throw money of the window, money that could be used to give incentives to the loyal community and attract the new ones in. Better secure the 2026 year of ASR with it. But ASR should encourage users to keep their tokens staked as long as they can, by giving a time weight boost and earning more jup tokens this way- better APR..for now it sucks, how much is it? 7-8% per semester?
1 Like
50% to be burned and hence reducing the supply monthly adds more value to existing holders. 25% to be saved for future projects and in litterbox . 25% to be given to stakers on monthly basis for everyone who stakes minimum 30 days. In this way it adds value for stakers and incentives them monthly instead of just ASR
1 Like
Don’t Burn.. Maybe give 1% to Loyal stakers that has never unstaked and use the remaining for other important DAO activities that might come up
1 Like
I personally lean toward burning. Although burning doesn’t bring immediate benefits to stakers, it reduces the circulating supply and strengthens JUP’s long-term value. If JUP could adopt a model like Binance’s, burning a fixed portion of its revenue while combining it with launchpad airdrops, it could turn JUP into a highly sought-after and scarce asset.
1 Like
This for me is madness. We can never imagine burning 59 million dollars in Jupiter tokens.
This will not make a difference in the future because the issuance is very large, so! SO…
Why not put this into ASR?
This will make $Jup holders hold even more, and consequently more people will adopt the $Jup currency and the Jupiter platform.
So my vote is for having ASR every 3 months, for as long as the Sandbox continues to be deposited, with the fees and buying $Jup.
ASR every 3 months is what we want. DO NOT BURN!
2 Likes
thanks for info mate
1 Like
Frankly, I see no reason to burn the LB; the 3% increase it would bring will be short-lived. As long as there’s no reason to buy $JUP, especially given its performance relative to the rest of the market. Burning the LB for the purpose of “raising awareness of the $JUP token” seems pointless to me; in my opinion, it’s not the best approach. The selling pressure on $JUP is still very high; I don’t know where this is coming from, since 20% of the circulating supply is locked up. This needs to be addressed; $JUP should already be burned as a fee in many more products within the Jupiter ecosystem!
3 Likes
There’s really no reason to believe that burning the tokens will help the price.
I think it’s better to keep the tokens for something that benefits the community, whether that’s rewarding contributors or hiring people who can help move the Jupiverse forward.
The $JUP price action is a separate issue altogether. Burning tokens is like adding chilli to a wound, it doesn’t solve the problem and it removes resources that could have been used to fix it.
And what happens if the burn goes through and the price doesn’t move? Who will we blame then, other than those who voted BURN? They’ll just hide behind anonymous accounts.
The real issue isn’t about burning but about finding meaningful ways to use the cat litter funds. This should have been discussed from the start, when the fund was created. The only reason this burn debate even exists is because no one from the team has clearly explained how the funds will be used or presented a strong plan to unlock their potential. I don’t want to burn the team this way, but the only reason why we are having this discussion, this vote is because nobody has any idea what the cat litter funds seeks to achieve or do from its inception til now. If there was a concrete plan from the start, we wouldn’t have came to this state where we are doing votes to burn or keep the funds
- polymonger -
3 Likes
To burn it would be disgraceful. It’s time to flywheel (similar to how Hyperliquid operates) to generate intelligent, full spectrum utility that feeds and grows the jupiter token organically. To burn it is like burning your own food store in the Winter because you will enjoy the warmth of the fire for about 2 days. Each month, on 28th, another 25 million dollars worth of liquidity (53.47 million JUP tokens) is added to jupiter pool, diluting investors, who also further dilute it with the silly ASRs that have been going on. Meanwhile, Jupiter DAO is closed, and Jupiter token itself, rots and stagnates. I will of course be voting No to the stupid, wasteful burn that achieves nothing. Let’s use it, get that flywheel going instead.
1 Like
I think it would be better to burn all of it.
Distributing it to the workgroup or sending it back to stakers will only create more drama and selling pressure.
A lower circulating supply and FDV will make JUP perform better during the upcoming alt season,
since right now, investors are mainly focused on FDV.
1 Like
I’m not an expert on tokenomics, and I fully understand the desire for the $JUP price to rise. However, I see little evidence to suggest that burning alone will achieve this sustainably.
The iconic burn during Catstanbul - an unforgettable Moment - had negligible impact on the token’s price. Calls for an immediate 100% burn often come from those seeking a quick pump and exit, rather than long-term value creation (imho).
I’m focused on the bigger picture. Instead of burning, we should prioritize expanding the ecosystem and growing the Jupiverse. Here are some ideasto do that:
- Sustain community events: Continue hosting Catstanbul-style gatherings for years to come, building lasting engagement and excitement.
- Support innovation: Provide grants to creators, developers, and artists … to fuel new projects and ideas within the ecosystem.
- Foster participation: Run contests for content creation, innovative ideas, and competitions to encourage broader involvement.
- Strategic expansions: Acquire complementary players in the market (both horizontally and vertically) to strengthen the value chain.
- Enhance incentives: Extend the ASR program or introduce new reward mechanisms to attract new users and retain staker.
From my point of view, long-term strategies and continuous growth are the right way to achieve the goal of onboarding the entire world to Jupiter.
PPP & J4J
3 Likes
I don’t think that burning will lead to a price increase or even if it does, it will result in a quick sale Jup by stakers. A strong community is what distinguishes Jupiter from other projects. Maybe we should consider rewarding long-term Jupiter stakers with a letterbox?
3 Likes
Honestly, I am kind of lost with JUP. What is the vision of it? There is JupUSD, JupSol, JLP, what is JUP faciliating? Governance? reduce fee? higher LTV?
If just above, then BURN ALL! If there is plan to use JUP to attract more users, more investors, more transactions, more rewards, then 50% burn.
At least till now, I don’t any vision of JUP, so BURN ALL!
I personally like the idea of burning the 50% now, and for the future revenue put it into a DAO reserve, who knows we might need the money for emergencies.
Burning the 50% now unfortunately will only give a small price jump that wont last longer than 2 weeks. Let me explain, IMO, people want the price to jump cause they want to sell and if everyone sells then we are back to where we started. I want to burn, not to sell but i would like to see more scarcity of the coin, when the bull run comes again. Top of the charts to get more eyes on the project.
I know everyone loves ASR cause its free money, hell i do too, but i think the other 50% of future revenue should be for DAO reserves, not ASR.
1 Like
I am seeing the Litterbox as a reserve. It’s meant to exist, keep accumulating, and sit there for as long as possible without anybody touching it. The only reason to touch it off because it is life threatening for Jupiter, so we need to use the funds to ensure Jupiter does not die. As far as I can see today, Jupiter if doing fine.
The Litterbox should not be burned and accumulate JUP as a rainy day fund when Jupiter may need it as a reason for survival.
We should instead have a separate burn fund, probably, as a measure to adjust the value of JUP if there are extreme sentiments driving the price.
2 Likes
Burning is such a short term view to have imo. I’d rather you encourage buying/holding/staking. Add the litterbox to staking rewards and have multipliers for those that have either staked for X amount of time (since day 1 for a lot of us) or are willing to lock up their stake from now on for different periods of time with % based boosts - similar to what bonk did which worked quite well, ie more rewards if you lock up for a year etc
2 Likes
burning is a long term vision.
A continous daily buyback and burn requires long term commitment both to using the platform and with products evolving thus generating revenue therefore, holding for the long term requires patience and conviction and alignment to reach that point of scarcity and fomo..
there is already enough incentives to staking that the team keeps coming up with,
example for now~airdrops~DTF~
Of course the litter box burn will do nothing to price… its not even about that… use it for future growth? reserve? asr? what every words i read each lead to jup having to be given away which will inherently cause sell pressure.. i personally dont even care about “sell pressure” but to read this phrase on the time line as a constant fud has reached a boiling point..
litter box was such a great move it just needed to be bb and burn daily since inception so we wouldnt even be in this current situation rn. anyways better late than never.
1 Like
Can we swap for USDC & use it for real-world, on-the-ground, mutual aid programs instead? Free health clinic pop-ups, and free food & produce pop-ups.
1 Like
Buyback and burn is not bad, we do need some type of deflationary mechanism. But do we need to burn it all?
After this proposal is determined, I would propose something different. I did like how Flash Trade set up their rev share. I’d like to see a mix of buyback/burn, stake rewards, multi-level lock up periods, to name a few.
Say Jupiter revenue is $100M last quarter, why couldn’t take 20% of that and buyback and burn JUP, 25% for staking rewards, 5% to buy $SOL and burn.
Also, why are we only at 50%? Most companies would kill for 20% returns. I think maybe we should consider reducing that.
1 Like
Yes it’s should be brun others wise for user understanding…..brun or not