Flawed Governance

Hidden player controlling the dao : The team
Maybe I’m too harsh about it but it has a deeper meaning to it, the top voter (for the recent j&j vote) is a team member which can be seen from where they got their tokens initially (jup team hot wallet) and thats about just one team member

I’m not against team having allocation they’ve worked hard all these years and build jup from scratch but the problem is there stake is comparatively great in terms of influencing the dao hence it’s better if there’s some different way taken there so dao doens’t lose its reliability

14 Likes

It’s not a team member. These tokens come from the mercurial stakeholders unlocks that began some time ago.

2 Likes

I don’t think so because the mer stakers allocation is vested over 2 years as per the audit but the said wallet got it within 3 months?

Also since you denied it completely being a team member, attaching the ss for 94m jup tokens that were initially funded from team hot wallet to the said wallet and locked for 2 years tx



5 Likes

There is no governance, I don’t understand why this vote even existed if the team would interfere in it. Putting something for “community” to decide when in reality they are deciding for community

5 Likes

Yeah, as far as I know it is not a team member, and the screenshot you quoted here clearly says linear vesting, meaning that it has been vesting since that date, probably on a monthly schedule. This is also described in the section that covers Mercurial stakeholders in the last audit.

Edit: I realize however that it doesn’t say definitive either way on-chain, and I’ve asked for the team to figure out and address it.

7 Likes

** An earlier mention said he stopped staking from may onwards, which i made a mistake. I meant to say, stopped vesting more tokens. Team members definitely deserves a say in dao governance too**

to clarify, this is indeed one of the core cofounders, along with me & siong. he is staking and voting with his vestings, because he really cares about the future of jupiter

i think he is entitled to his point of view here, surely he wants the best for jupiter n jup too

to add on to the point of flawed governance, this is why:

  • me and siong does / will not use our tokens to vote, even after vesting
  • he has stopped vesting from may onwards, but will continue participating in governance, i think his current stake is a very reasonable say in the dao given that he has been here since day one and honesly built up the core of jupiter as we know it
13 Likes

Meow, my understanding was that the team decided to lock their tokens for an additional two years. Maybe I am misinformed as there is really a lot to understand, but if it was decided to continue to leave the tokens locked for an additional two years, how are the tokens being staked if they are still locked? Are 4%+ of the community ASR rewards also going to this staker? I guess I see locked tokens as something that couldn’t be staked, just like our HUMA tokens that we purchased (even though the HUMA team misinformed us and told us that there would be NO staking available to anyone within our lockup period - a topic for another day or never I guess). Thanks.

5 Likes

Can we really fight this hidden players, “No” and can we say they shouldn’t stay jup to participate in ASR 'NO". We everybody to hold jup. In Government some set of cabals still control the Government “YES”.
Community need proposal that will favour everybody not just some set of individual though if jup is giving to everyone of the jupiverse some people see it as nice Idea but if it’s given to people who stay woke and work to push jupiverse in term of media some community member felt they are getting to paid while people who complained too much only want the price to pump so they can take profits. The working group should stop asking for Jup as additional payments to what they are getting paid or put then in condition that if they are getting additional they need to move or push jup price to certain level. Like if Jup doesn’t get to 2$ your working group will be demoted to trial group.

2 Likes

I presume yourself, kash and Siong also bought $JUP on the open market?

I personally don’t see an issue with you using those tokens to vote as you bought them just like anyone else.

Just wanted to clarify

1 Like

correct for me at least, the only JUP i have is what i bought on market

3 Likes

Exactly, so you may vote as any other dao member would. Even if its a slight conflict of interest.
Some people are missing this

i think the beauty of a token like $JUP is that its an alignment generator.

shouldn’t be any conflict of interest (provided i’m not giving myself any money, which I’m not - didn’t even take any funds from Uplink), since our interest is shared to grow the products, community, and ideas of the Jupiter ecosystem

5 Likes

Meow stated that the person “is staking and voting with his vestings”. I don’t think you purchase vestings on the open market. I don’t think it matters if someone buys and stakes from the open market, but I’m not missing anything here. Sorry, not fudding, I’m one of the largest stakers, but this is a horrible look, especially with everything else going on lately.

3 Likes

i too am confused with how someone stakes and votes with their “vestings” and why they’d stop May onwards lol

I don’t want to speak for them, but I’m assuming they are stopping because a community member saw this, and asked the question. Hopefully they can provide more clarity without tossing in words like “alignment” to distract from the subject of the conversation. For the first quarter ASR, this wallet pulled almost 1/50 of the entire ASR, 799,858.359473 tokens, and this is with only 3 of 5 votes. I assume the community would not be happy if they knew this. I still don’t understand how these tokens vested and weren’t re-locked as we were told they would be. How many other wallets have done something similar? Meow, we are making decisions based on the information we are given, some of them involving large sums of money because we believe in the project and trust you. I have to be honest, I was almost done with crypto, but finally decided to just go passive with Jupiter, because if I couldn’t trust them to be transparent, who could I trust? I had asked to speak to you before I began staking and should have insisted on it. I trusted the information we had been given, though, and don’t feel like we should have to dig through the chain to find out what is really going on. What is sad to me is that you have one of the few products that actually makes the revenue to provide for EVERYONE’s success, including the community that is supporting you. I can’t think of many others that have this ability. You have the ability to change the status quo of constant rugs, false promises, and provide for a DAO that has “real” power. I really beg of you to make this choice and be the individual that turns this space around. Also, when things like this happen, please own the mistakes, not gloss over them. Maybe it’s time you employ an external auditor type person, outside the team, to have access to information they could use so that all of this could be cleared up and we could have a starting point to move forward. Thank you for listening.

7 Likes

dirty AF if this is the case

trust is earned in drops and lost in buckets

5 Likes

Vesting was a murical (sorry about spelling) finance pre sale which was disclosed in pre sale tokenomics

So they did buy this pre sale as a perk from my understanding

So yes it is open marketing a way

I’ve been sitting with this for a while, trying to wrap my head around what’s been happening with the broader shape of governance at Jupiter.

Let me start with something simple:
I don’t have an issue with team members buying $JUP on the open market with their own money. If anything, I respect that. That’s what most of us did. We believed in what was being built, we wanted to support it, and we staked our capital — and often our voices — behind that belief.

But here’s where the discomfort starts:
It’s not just about team members buying in. It’s about the massive allocations of free $JUP distributed to the team as part of their compensation — tokens granted alongside salaries and bonuses — being used to shape, steer, and ultimately decide the very governance that’s supposed to be “community-driven.”
And let’s not pretend this is hypothetical.
The team writes the proposals. The team votes on those proposals using staked allocations. And when people question the outcome — like in the case of the Meow 2030 vote, which pulled 220M $JUP from community reserves and shattered the original 50/50 split — the answer we get is always the same:
“The community has voted.”

But if core insiders are driving both the content of the vote and the majority of the votes themselves… is it the community that’s speaking? The team owns over 50% of all tokens. It seems they can now vote and get ASR rewards even on tokens that are still in the process of vesting… because they “care”? I feel like what they care about is fighting off the inflation that’s built into the value of $JUP. No surprise there. ASR is the only way to preserve some value in a JUP investment while waiting for all 7 billion tokens to hit the market and for the price to settle based on real demand and value.

Then came the recent “DAO Resolution,” which quietly redefined the DAO’s role as a kind of legislative wing for adoption and community. Not treasury. Not product. Not token strategy. That’s all retained by the team. So the DAO is now officially limited to marketing, guided and owned by a selected few individuals - because they care the most :slight_smile:

Now, we’re seeing proposals where newly formed teams like JUP & JUICE are requesting massive allocations — hundreds of thousands USDC in one-year commitments — with no clear checks on power, with extra alignment tokens of 87,000 $JUP per person, per year. Funny enough, when challenged on why they get so much $JUP, the answer was: “It’s better to have $JUP in the hands of people who care, instead of wealthy whales with deep pockets.”

To be honest, if I was one of those whales who invested too much of my own money, and I saw what was happening to my investment, I’d probably pull my money out of $JUP and let all those “more deserving” people have their token.

We keep calling this a decentralized experiment, but the actual outcomes are starting to resemble something much more familiar.

Yes, Jupuary brought in a wave of new users, and that was a win for the ecosystem. But this isn’t Bitcoin. And it’s not Dogecoin either — at least that had meme energy and no illusions. Without any real utility or value capture, we’re left holding something that drifts lower every quarter while being told to feel “aligned.”
It’s hard to feel aligned when the tokens you bought are down 50%… again, especially since there’s no real reason to hold any JUP. Now, it seems that votes can be swayed by a select few.

And if the people who believed the most and invested their own hard-earned money into the project are left feeling deceived—not because of price, but because of structure—then it won’t be the market that kills the vision. It’ll be the trust that quietly disappears, one wallet at a time

12 Likes

You have points just that it’s what it’s, that’s present system, mechanism and flow though it have is own advantage. Every system have it own advantage and disadvantages but regarding the 2030 proposal it created alot of FUD. All we need now is innovative proposal that we put trust back to the community. As a Dao we’re spending more on working group while Investors are having negative view towards the action.

1 Like

Well said.
I also invested heavily into Jupiter from the start on the (incorrect) assumption that the JUP token would derive its value from the ecosystem.
Now to find out it was never intended as a value accrual token.
So its use is purely to vote and now the scope of voting has been restricted to marketing.

I just watched the interview regarding the Jup-Juice pairing and honestly I could not unstake my tokens fast enough after that.
Talk about a group promising a whole bunch of nothing and then dismissing using measurable metrics/KPIS etc.

5 Likes