New DAO vote: Proposal to Burn the Litterbox

Jupiter DAO
1

The Litterbox Trust was established earlier this year to receive 50% of Jupiter’s onchain revenue and programmatically buy back $JUP.
The original plan was to increase alignment and build a DAO capital reserve. However, feedback from the community has made it clear that decisive action is necessary to benefit all $JUP holders.

For this reason, the Jupiter DAO will now hold votes on the future of the Litterbox. We need to answer two independent questions:

  1. What should be done with the ≈130M $JUP tokens currently in the Litterbox (≈4% of circulating supply)?
  2. What should happen with the 50% of onchain revenues sent to the Litterbox in the future?

Today, we begin voting on the first question with a simple binary choice: should we burn the $JUP in the Litterbox, or not?

Note: ASR for Q4 2025 will remain time-weighted and will not be affected by this vote.

Read the initial discussion here: Discussion: Burning the $JUP Tokens in the Litterbox Trust

7 Likes
4

Great! But I’ll crack it down..

1 Like
5

why can’t we take revenue earned and flip that into an asset that stakers can benefit from?

The path to financial independence is owning assets, not burning money. There has to be a way to use rev earned and invest it into something that pays a yield or a dividend.

Let’s get creative.

2 Likes
6

Yo! We are voting on whether or not to burn the litterbox, as it has been the most suggested action by far. Voting no to burning these tokens is effectively the same as voting to use it in a different manner, which will also be decided by DAO vote if it becomes the winning option.

1 Like
7

i voted no after reading the q4 token holder update.

would be nice to burn and temporarily push the price up(maybe)

but after reading the token holder update, i belive the overall value of jupiter will refelect on $JUP price eventually

the current funds in the litterbox can be use in a more effective way via product growth + within the community instead of just burning it.

–
tldr;

sell your kidney(+ your annoying uncle) and full port in JUP.

just use jupiter

2 Likes
8

There is a lot of jup out of circulation yet, burn or not that small amount of jup in comparison to total supply doesn’t matter at all. But I am against to continue ASR and use it there because it requires lock and block people to buy jup, because lock liquidity in crypto is worst thing to do, so I have to vote yes despite the fact it doesn’t affect jup performance

1 Like
9

I say burn’em!!! Maybe I’ll reinvest my 5k USD if it’ll actually affect the price :joy:

10

I’d luv to see

  • 20% given to JUP stakers
  • 80% being used to acquire a strategic reserve (aka Bitcoin + Solana)

This increases the staking utility and builds up a war chest we can use for whatever later on.

1 Like
11

What if we just leave these tokens and do nothing with them, because the number of these tokens is small, ≈4% of the circulating supply?

Sorry for my English, I used a translator to write this comment.

12

Just wanted to say I really appreciate the comments from those weighing both options. Honestly, I think both sides make sense.

If we burn, there’s that clear, instant result. But holding onto the funds and investing them could really help build something lasting for the whole community. I don’t see why we couldn’t aim for a mix: plan smart ways to use the funds and still keep the burn option on the table, anytime, for strategic use, if it feels right.

13

Hi, personally I would spend 70% and distribute the remaining 30% among Jup stakers. The reward calculation should be based on the time frame. We have a marathon where the main thing is that people do not lose faith in the token and the team. I believe in the team and that they will make the right decision!

14

This should’ve been part of a much larger proposal with more voting options like ranked choice.

I’m in favor of keeping the JUP because I think it was ridiculous to spend DAO money on the token to begin with but now that it’s there’s I find it hard to justify burning it. If you would’ve put $60M of USDC, SOL, BTC, JLP, etc into the wallet then no one would say burn it.

Burns are great but they have to happen regularly and shouldn’t be done by buying back the token, it should be from organic accumulation of the token like BNB does by offering lower trading fees if you pay them in BNB.

BUT, the last thing I want is for this JUP to be used to benefit a few whales that will dump on us or to pay for operational cost, parties, conventions, giveaways, ASR, jupuary, or anything else that doesn’t lead to revenue.

If it’s used responsibily to buy a company that is 100% DAO owned, create liquidity pools that collect fees in other tokens and Coins like USDC, BTC, SOL, or JLP, are used to slowly long-term DCA into tokenized stocks, or something similar then that is the best option because those don’t flood the market and drive down price, they send bullish signals, they create long term revenue for the DAO, and they actually add a floor to the token so holders know it literally can’t go to zero.

My fear is that I vote not to burn only for the next vote to be something stupid like doing a big giveaway or using it to pay influencers to spam the timeline.

Ranked choice voting, an IFTTT style vote, or just having more options in this vote would’ve been really nice.

15

There is only one solution. It is simple

Convert the entire litterbox into Zcash, zetardio

16

I don’t think burning the 130M $JUP in the Litterbox is going add any value to anyone. Burning feels decisive, but it’s really just destroying $60M+ in real capital for a fleeting price bump that’ll fade in days.

Instead burning, one option could be to redirect all 130M into an ASR booster pool over the next 12–24 months. Picture this: most of it going straight to time-weighted staking rewards, giving every staker a solid 4–6% yield boost.

For the future 50% onchain revenue, I want to see the majority flowing to stakers too, but here we can be more flexible. For example, we can put 70% of the revenue directly going into active staking rewards or as revenue sharing to Jup holders/stakers, and for the of the 30% we can have votes where the revenues will be used. Other revenue uses which we could vote in the future can be for marketing, dev grands or building a reserve or buyback during extreme dips.

Rather than burning, this way litterbox funds and onchain revenue gives stakers constant and guaranteed rewards and also leaves room to explore other ways to add value to jupiter stakers and ecosystem in long term.

17

I’m not really up for burning it but what will be done with it if it’s not burnt?

18

Voting BURN on ~130M $JUP in the Litterbox. Tired of value flowing to JLP while $JUP bleeds. Burn removes overhang + forces policy. Next: codify revenue splits (e.g., 35–50% auto-burn), emissions caps, and quarterly transparency so $JUP captures value.

19

I’m voting to burn the ~130M JUP in the Litterbox. I’m pissed because the protocol’s success has mostly shown up in JLP while JUP has bled. Burning removes the overhang and forces a clean, transparent value policy for JUP going forward.

Why I’m mad

  • I bought JUP as the utility/governance token expecting to capture protocol growth. Instead, most of the tangible value (fees/cash flow) has been accruing to JLP.

  • JUP price dumped while the product grew. That disconnect feels like holders subsidized growth without sharing its upside.

  • The Litterbox stash sitting there became a constant overhang/uncertainty on JUP’s story.

Why I’m voting BURN

  • Remove overhang immediately. Killing ~4% supply reduces future sell/usage uncertainty and simplifies token economics.

  • Force policy discipline. With no comfy pile to dip into, the DAO has to define predictable, on-chain revenue rules instead of ad-hoc decisions.

  • Narrative reset for JUP. If JLP is the fee leg, JUP needs clear, codified value capture (not vibes). A burn is step one.

What I want next (right after the burn)

Please commit to concrete, measurable rules so JUP actually captures value:

  1. Auto-burn a fixed % of on-chain revenues (e.g., 35–50%) executed on a set cadence.

  2. Treasury split (e.g., remaining 50–65%): transparent buckets for grants, liquidity, and reserves with published wallets and quarterly reports.

  3. Emissions guardrails: hard caps and a public schedule beyond 2025.

  4. Quarterly transparency: buys, burns, emissions, circulating vs. locked — all in one dashboard.

Closing

I’m not anti-JLP — it’s doing what it was designed to do. I’m anti a system where JUP holders eat the risk but don’t share the reward. Burn the stash, remove the doubt, and immediately codify a revenue policy so JUP finally has a credible path to value.