FAQs: Net-Zero Emission Proposal

Jupiter DAO $JUP
1

bbs the FAQ just dropped

read, have a think, come by to X spaces on Monday

Also adding the text inline here in case X locks my account.

————————-

Hi there, it’s intern again.

For those of you who don’t know me, I led the last 2 Jupuaries and worked closely with the community through both.

I know the latest DAO proposal has a lot of you feeling strongly. We’ve been reading your messages.

I gathered the top questions around the Net-Zero Emissions proposal, and the team’s responses here. We’re also holding a townhall on X Spaces on Monday. Come through, ask questions, let’s talk it out.

FAQs:

Why are we proposing for Jupuary to be postponed? I want that airdrop.

If you were looking forward to Jupuary, we understand the frustration. This airdrop was proposed as part of a series of votes in 2024 because we believe in it as a genuinely beautiful and very defi way to reward real users for just using the product. The first Jupuary dropped a billion $JUP (worth $700M to $2B at prices then) and created the foundation for the original community.

That was over 15 months ago. The market has changed. Bitcoin is down nearly 50% from its peak, Solana is down 65%, and $JUP is at its lowest levels. The feedback from token holders has changed and they are understandably concerned about dropping 700M tokens into this environment.

And the DAO itself has changed.

Less than 29% of current stakers cast a vote for this Jupuary back in 2024. When the electorate has changed this much, over such a long period of time, in a drastically different environment than when the vote took place, it makes sense to us to ask the question:

“Do you still consent to this?”

Why bundle the community airdrop with Team/Mercurial emissions in option 2? Can we let Jupuary proceed and stop emissions after?

Because half measures don’t move markets. The whole point of this proposal is to send one decisive signal: zero net new emissions in 2026.

We’ve always done things 50/50 with the community. From our original distribution where 50% went to the team and 50% to community, to our joint burning of 30% of the supply. This proposal is no different.

The market does not distinguish between sources of emissions. Whether tokens come from Jupuary, team vesting, or Mercurial unlocks, they all create the same sell pressure on $JUP. If we do Jupuary first and address emissions after, the damage is already done.

We are putting massive amounts of team capital behind this, actively buying tokens from Mercurial and team sales. We are asking the DAO to consider postponing Jupuary alongside those actions because together, they fundamentally reshape the outlook for $JUP. Separately, none of these moves are enough.

For details, see “How will Mercurial Offset work” and “How will Team Emissions work” below.

How will the returned Jupuary tokens be used in the future?

If option 2 passes, the 700M tokens go into the Community Cold Multisig, not the team treasury. They cannot be moved or used without a future DAO vote. Your snapshot is preserved. When the time is right, the community decides what happens next.

What is the net emissions impact if this proposal passes?

Net new emissions go from ~1.2B $JUP to effectively zero for 2026.

Will this actually reduce dilution and support long-term value?

This proposal results in zero net-new emissions for 2026. On top of that, the team is using its own balance sheet to buy any team and Mercurial investor sales of vested tokens. Combined with the ongoing Litterbox buybacks from 50% of onchain revenue, $JUP will have one of the cleanest emission profiles in defi.

We can’t make promises about price, but we can make sure the fundamentals are strong.

How will the Mercurial Offset work?

Over 99% of $JUP allocated to Mercurial stakeholders are held in under 300 wallets. Each of those 300 wallets are known and will be tracked by us. When these wallets sell $JUP or move it to an exchange, we will buy an equivalent amount of $JUP to offset the sales.

How will the Team Emissions work?

Anyone receiving team emissions will receive a ‘credit’ against Jupiter’s $JUP balance sheet in the future, instead of receiving $JUP onchain. When they want to sell, Jupiter is the counterparty and absorbs the sale directly.

This speaks to the strength of both our commitment to $JUP and our balance sheet. It also means that we have even more skin in the game, knowing ultimately that we backstop our team ourselves instead of the market.

Do we still get ASR?

Yes. ASR remains unchanged and continues at 50M per quarter. These come from circulating tokens from previously unclaimed Jupuary, so there are no new emissions

——-

That’s all I’ve got for you now.

Reminder: The proposal is live on the Jup research forum. The vote runs Tuesday through Saturday. We’ll also be hosting an X Spaces townhall on Monday to take your questions live. Come through. :heart_hands:

4 Likes
2

The “Net-Zero” FAQ is an attempt to solve a $30M mathematical non-issue by creating a permanent multi-million dollar deficit in protocol trust. By taking a snapshot and then attempting to retrospectively cancel the reward, the team is signaling that “Market Narrative” is more important than the social contract. For a protocol that generates $1B+ in annual fees, choosing to default on loyal users instead of simply absorbing a 2% supply increase via its massive revenue is a strategic failure in governance that risks a long-term user exodus.

The “Ugly” Rebuttal

  • The “Snapshot Trap”: You cannot logically claim that a “snapshot is preserved” while postponing the reward indefinitely. A snapshot is a record of work performed for a promised reward. Changing the rules after the work is done isn’t “governance evolution”—it is a retrospective default that burns the very users who generated your $1B in revenue.

  • The Math Doesn’t Justify the Betrayal: At current prices, the 200M JUP user allocation costs ~$30M. Jupiter generates ~$50M per month. The team could reach “Net-Zero” in just three weeks by simply buying back the airdrop from protocol profits. Choosing to “kill the drop” instead proves this isn’t about math; it’s about avoiding the effort of supporting the price to protect whale exit liquidity.

  • Trust is the Only Non-Streaming Asset: The FAQ suggests that “market conditions have changed.” Market prices fluctuate, but a protocol’s word should not. If Jupiter’s promises are only valid during a bull market, it is no longer a community-led DAO—it is a fair-weather corporation.

  • The False Binary: The team has presented a choice between “Airdrop” and “Health.” This is a false choice. A high-ability team would offer a middle path: Honor the 200M JUP drop, but lock it in a 1-year linear release. This protects the price and the protocol’s integrity. By refusing this, you aren’t protecting the DAO; you’re bullying it.

2 Likes
3

“Less than 29% of current stakers cast a vote for this Jupuary back in 2024”

I don’t really understand this stat. Many of us have multiple wallets. How many of the new wallets are owned by people who have Jup staked and voted with older wallets? How many wallets had staked Jup and chose not to vote? At the risk of sounding insulting I don’t believe this statistic is intended to be truth seeking. It is being presented in an attempt to justify the teams preferred conclusion which is to delay the Jupuary drop

Anyone who bought and staked Jup after December of 24’ did so with the knowledge that the jupuary vote had already taken place or at least that information was available to them. They could have and should have taken that info into consideration when they decided to buy and stake. On top of that the Jupuary drop was reaffirmed by the team several months ago and in my opinion, even though it wasn’t exact, a reasonably unbiased person could infer a rough timeframe.

If the price of Jup does go down in the short term I don’t really understand why that’s such a big deal. The litterbox will be able to buy more tokens at a cheaper price and the balance sheet of the protocol will be less negatively affected by any tokens that it purchases from team members and mercurial investors. If the DAO wants to continue burning the litterbox then a cheaper token in the short term could lead to much better tokenomics in the long term

And even more critically in my opinion we build trust with our users by following through with our commitments. And please can we stop calling them farmers. They are absolutely critical to our success. I know for sure the team doesn’t feel this way about them. However because of some of the sentiment I’ve been reading on discord I would be very grateful if the team would come out and state this explicitly BEFORE the vote takes place to denounce this nonsense. If users are earning more in rewards than they are paying in fees then this is a flaw in the design of the incentive structure. The team is full of very smart and capable people so I doubt that this is the case