Yes, from the beginning, Meow has made it clear that the primary function of $JUP is as a governance token rather than as a token with traditional utility or direct value capture. This reflects a long-term experiment in community coordination.
However, over a year into the experiment, a clear path for the token remains elusive. Although governance is its stated purpose, its power largely feels symbolic. Despite having hundreds of thousands of holders, the community still struggles to make impactful decisions.
This can create the perception that the token is losing relevance, even though Jupiter’s products and partnerships are driving growth. This growth doesn’t directly translate back to the $JUP asset, which can lead to this perception.
From the beginning, $JUP was designed with a self-limiting approach (at least in my humble opinion), deliberately avoiding utility and direct value capture mechanisms. While this aligns with the founding philosophy, it raises questions about sustainability.
Experiments require feedback loops. For example, what would happen if staking levels dropped significantly, say, below 20–30% of the circulating supply? Could the resulting lack of economic alignment become a critical issue, especially since contributors are compensated in $JUP and USDC? Often, they sell the token to cover expenses without needing to hold it long-term. (If not in JUP yet, it will be sooner or later.)
Should the model be reevaluated based on these signals?
Another key decision is the exclusion of $JUP from JupNet. While the details of JupNet are still vague, this decision limits $JUP’s potential utility further. If the current vision doesn’t succeed, will there be an admission of failure, an evolution of the model, or perhaps the launch of JUP v2?
It is essential to define clear success metrics for this experiment and outline contingency plans in case of failure.
Many individuals have invested real capital in this project, so greater clarity on these points would be beneficial.
