Proposal: Make JUP an Economic Membership Token — Staking Tiers, Fee Discounts, and a 70% Buyback-and-Burn

Strengthening JUP Utility and Value Accrual

As a JUP staker and long-term supporter of the Jupiter ecosystem, I would like to propose several ideas that could strengthen the relationship between Jupiter’s growth and the value of JUP.

Jupiter has already built one of the most widely used DeFi products in the Solana ecosystem. However, I believe there is still a gap between the success of the Jupiter protocol and the utility and demand for JUP itself.

Currently, users can use Jupiter’s products without holding JUP. I believe this is one of the biggest opportunities for Jupiter to improve JUP’s long-term value accrual.

1. Increase the Buyback Allocation from 50% to 70%

I would like to propose increasing the portion of protocol revenue allocated to JUP buybacks from 50% to 70%.

More importantly, I would suggest that 100% of the JUP purchased through these buybacks be permanently burned.

This would create a simple and transparent value-accrual mechanism:

More Jupiter usage → More protocol revenue → More JUP buybacks → More JUP burned

As Jupiter grows, JUP holders would directly benefit from that growth through a reduction in circulating supply.

2. Introduce Real Utility for JUP Stakers

JUP staking should provide tangible benefits beyond governance.

For example, staked JUP could provide tier-based benefits across the Jupiter ecosystem:

  • Lower Perps trading fees

  • Lower Swap fees

  • Benefits for future Jupiter products

  • Higher benefits based on the amount of JUP staked

  • Additional ecosystem privileges for long-term stakers

This would create a reason for users to acquire and hold JUP rather than simply speculate on it.

The goal should not be to force users to hold JUP.

Instead:

Hold and stake JUP → Receive better benefits when using Jupiter

This would allow JUP to function as an economic membership asset for the Jupiter ecosystem.

3. Allow JUP to Be Used Directly for Trading Fees

Another possibility would be to allow users to pay Jupiter-related fees using JUP.

For example:

USDC / SOL → Standard fee

JUP → Discounted fee

The exact discount could be determined through governance.

This would create an additional source of organic JUP demand without requiring JUP to become a gas token.

Users would still be free to use USDC or SOL, while JUP holders would receive an economic incentive to use JUP.

4. Create a JUP Utility Flywheel

These mechanisms could reinforce each other:

JUP demand

→ Users acquire JUP

→ Users stake JUP for ecosystem benefits

→ Staked JUP becomes less liquid

→ More users use JUP for discounted fees

→ Jupiter activity and revenue increase

→ 70% of revenue is used for JUP buybacks

→ Bought JUP is permanently burned

→ Circulating supply decreases

This would create a stronger connection between Jupiter’s fundamental growth and JUP.

5. The Goal Is Not to Artificially Increase the Price of JUP

The objective of this proposal is not simply to increase the price of JUP.

The objective is to make the token economically meaningful within the ecosystem that Jupiter has already built.

Jupiter has real users, real trading volume, real products, and real revenue.

I believe the next step should be to make JUP capture a greater portion of the economic value created by that ecosystem.

The long-term vision could be:

Jupiter grows → JUP becomes more useful → more users hold and stake JUP → more JUP is removed from circulation → JUP holders benefit from Jupiter’s growth.

JUP does not need to become an L1 gas token to achieve this.

It can instead become the economic membership and utility token of the Jupiter ecosystem.

As a JUP staker, I believe this would create a much stronger alignment between Jupiter’s success and the long-term interests of JUP holders.

I would encourage the Jupiter team and DAO to seriously consider these mechanisms as part of the next stage of JUP utility and value accrual.

7 Likes

What a nice proposal

[Feedback on JUP Tokenomics Proposal]

The core direction of using protocol revenue for buyback and burn to offset FDV dilution (2.1x) is solid and aligns with proven models like Uniswap, Aave, and dYdX. However, to maximize its chances of passing the DAO and ensuring long-term sustainability, four key improvements should be addressed:

  • 1. Adopt Flexible Burn Ratios (50% Burn + 20% Reserve)

    A rigid 70% full burn is risky during bear markets when revenue drops. Allocating 50% to burn and 20% to protocol reserves creates a safety buffer to maintain treasury runway.

  • 2. Address Regulatory & Governance Risks

    Tiered fee discounts function like revenue sharing, raising Howey Test securities risks under current regulatory ambiguity. High entry thresholds could also centralize benefits among whales, sparking community backlash.

  • 3. Clarify JUP Fee Handling

    The mechanism for JUP collected as fees remains incomplete. Without explicitly defining whether these tokens will be burned or kept for operational spend, it risks creating ongoing market sell pressure.

  • 4. Provide Simulation Data on Unlock Absorption

    The proposal needs quantitative backing. Attaching a data-driven simulation to demonstrate how annual burn estimates will actually offset annual token unlocks will significantly increase DAO voter support.

1 Like

I have tried these people dont listen,they live in an alternative reality​:pleading_face:

Agreed 70% buybacks directly to a burn address would be very bullish for the token.

Swap fees are already pretty low.
Some utility could be slightly better rates for JUP Lend just like you get better rates for holding more money at a brokerage.
X money upsells its premium plus by offering an extra 2% interest etc. Obviously it couldn’t be that much because you have to stay competitive vs other protocols but an extra 0.1% APY on JupUSD could be interesting.