It’s should be 
burn
So nothing much more I could add to what lochie2001 said in their post.
I fully support and believe everything they do and will be voting
NO BURN!!
We need to really think this over more seriously and come to a more reasonable list of options with a possible percent burn as an option.
1 Like
I’ve read all the responses in this thread and I think this one really hits on some of the points I wanted to make. I won’t lie my involvement in the ecosystem of JUP in particular has been very from a distance. I bought JUP when I could over and over and then staked it to be able to vote on stuff. Never really weighed in on stuff before but the overwhelming majority of people I see saying we should burn feels like a weird race to the bottom with old school mentalities that we have grown out of today.
There is no need to burn it all either if there is some sort of burn. But truly burn shows a level of lost faith as well that I don’t sit comfortably with as a holder.
If anything let some of these foolish folks put there JUP where there mouth is if they want burns let’s incentivize a percent burn elsewhere.
1 Like
as of right now the votes are almost closed and the votes are in at 86% to burn JUP litterbox tokens. Looks like its gonna be a BURN 
1 Like
It’s called supply and demand. Companies have been doing buybacks for decades to support share prices. It’s the same thing.
I’m really glad that the vote to burn passed. I think the % of stakers voting for this was quite telling and I will personally be voting for all future litterbox purchases to be burnt.
I completely agree that JUP should be doing other good things to grow the jupiverse, I saw a recent Meow tweet where he was like, “we need to grow the f*ck out of this it’s the only way out” (or something to that effect…). I just don’t agree you need to dish out JUP tokens to people to do that. I have said it before but if you build the best products, people will use the product away, you don’t need to give them the token to tempt them to use the product. JUP is synonymous with Solana. Jup will naturally grow as Solana continues to grow, and that’s before the host of additional products and improvements that Jup is making (which is fantastic to see).
The whole proposition of JUP from all the original airdrop discussions was all about 50/50.
I personally believe that the team should be able to use their 50% share of the JUP revenue to sufficiently grow the Jupiverse, and the other 50% should be used as a continual buy-back and burn. You can’t tell me 100 odd people in the JUP team should be earning more than $100m a year on salaries, plus all their JUP tokens? That’s absurd.
This would add certainly and a key value proposition for the token - it then becomes a self sustaining fly-wheel. People become more invested, buy tokens, use the products more because it supports their investments. Look at all the users HYPE managed to capture with this approach.
Mindsets need to change imo.
1 Like
Share buybacks are almost universally seen as a bad idea. There’s no evidence they’ve ever been anything but negative (and there is a lot of data out there).
Crypto should try to avoid the worst ideas of tradfi; not repeat them.
Raydium and Hyperliquid seem to have succeeded in underpinning their token prices with buybacks, but they don’t burn; they distribute.
It’s early for Orca but their buyback and distribute programs appears off to decent start.
Burns are not buybacks.
1 Like