Proposal: Net-Zero Emissions

Jupiter DAO
23

Option 2 makes things even worse imo; it just amplifies even more the core problem of supply overhang.

Why would anyone invest knowing that at any given point in the future, when there are around 1.300.000.000 JUP. Waiting to dilute his investment?

Personaly id rather have the emission end by the end of this year and leave those who want to sell selling and those who want to buy, buying. Rather than introducing a massive, abysmal fear factor to the community indefinitely. We are just delaying the inevitable.

I choose longevity over short-term gratification. Option 1.
Not because of allocation, which will be irrelevantly small for me, but because I know this horror of an abysmal amount of supply will be finaly out there. And then it’s fair game for believers and dumpers.

10 Likes
24

Ironically I think pausing emissions will hurt the token in the long run more.. if you rip off the band-aid now Jupuary ends, the team gets their tokens over the year, we are in a bear market and the token sells off a bit more (more than it would if we did vote #2) but a lower token price means buybacks sweep up more supply. Where would we be in a year from now if we did as originally planned with vote #1?

  1. Dumpers are out at a lower price
  2. Buybacks have more supply to burn
  3. Stakers get their Jupuary reward for holding through the turbulence (can we make future ASR JupUSD?)
  4. There’s no un-pause lingering over our heads because the team got their unlocks for 2026
  5. Bear markets last around 16 months or w/e so its likely 2027 will start a bull cycle again.. it lines $JUP up to be an investible token at the beginning of a bull market for the first time without a bunch of unlocks coming.
    That’s what I was ready for.
    If you want to end all token emissions now that would be good for the token surely but I’m sure the team doesn’t want to sacrifice that unless they think they are already holding enough $JUP token and are willing to be focused on its price appreciation.
4 Likes
25

Option 3

Stop all token emissions AFTER jupuary.

7 Likes
26

I used Ultra Swap all year. I staked. I did everything to be rewarded in January. I even claimed & staked last year’s airdrop without selling a single dollar.
Why? Because they said “loyal users will be rewarded.”
So what happened this year? đŸ§”đŸ‘‡
1/ The $JUP I refused to sell at $1.20 dropped to $0.15 within a year. A 90% meltdown. I barely held myself together. Still didn’t unstake. Still believed.
2/ And what do we see today? A proposal to “cancel Jupuary and cut emissions.”
Are you serious?
3/ If you were sincere, you would’ve thought about this while the team was dumping their tokens on us. Not at $1.20, not at $0.80 — it only crossed your mind AFTER the token got crushed to $0.15?
4/ For an entire year I: → Generated swap revenue for you → Staked my tokens → Never sold my airdrop → Supported the community
And in return? 90% loss and “no more rewards”?
5/ If I can’t even get my staker bonus, this isn’t just a loss — it’s punishing loyalty.
If you’re trying to sugarcoat this with emission cuts — please don’t. I waited 1 year, I can wait 1 more. No problem.
6/ You really want to save costs?
Cancel your own team emissions. Don’t touch community emissions.
Give us what we deserve. It’s that simple.

15 Likes
27

I believe this is a constructive and well-intentioned proposal, but its timing is premature. It should be considered only after the commitments already made for this year have been fully honored by Jupiter.

Many community members have spent the year staking their tokens, absorbing opportunity costs and losses based on clear expectations of promised rewards. Moving the goalposts before delivering on those commitments risks undermining trust and fairness.

At a minimum, the previously promised Jupuary distributions and incentive programs should be completed first. Once those obligations are met, this proposal could be revisited and voted on — potentially with adjustments, such as extending the emissions holdback to two years instead of one.

In short, the idea itself has merit, but the sequencing is off. Deliver first, then change course.

12 Likes
28

Option 1 airdroppppppp

4 Likes
29

we need to third way like make jupuary and unlock all team and investors tokens, we dump and finish all sell pressure also make penalty for jupuary claiming if you want to claim directly you can take %66 of your allocation or stake your allocation for 1 year, you get %100 your allocation and get others %34 who claims directly and who didnt choose option(unclaimed tokens)
after than we should next voting for asr rewards they should be jupusd or usdc so that make zero emission for jup also cancel buying jup with %50 of jupiter revenue ,buy usdc or create jupusd and use it increasing asr rewards so people will buy and stake jup so we dumped first and pumped in 2-3 month and finish all sell plessure with who untrust jup and FINALLY THATS REALLY Ä°MPORTANT you guys now kill your customers trust so after jupuary some of them dont use jup so jupiter revenue will decrease so you should create clear trust. you can give them guarentee next jupuary %100 will happen and team or dao cant cancel it. AND SHORT VERSÄ°ON OF THE STORY token sell plussure finish and it dumped customers who use jupiter will get allocation and they happy also they still using jupiter because they know next jupuary will be happen and make next voting for asr rewards with usdc or jupusd and people who trust jup will buy the dip and token pumped again

1 Like
30

One last thing: As an honest, high-volume power user who has consistently used Jupiter for swaps, perps, bridges, etc., this proposal hurts deeply.

I always knew the Jupuary airdrop value would never fully cover the fees I’ve paid over the past year and I was fine with that. The real reward was participating in a protocol I believed in, while contributing real economic value through fees that sustain the entire business.

But labeling dedicated users who generated those fees as “farmers” feels dishonest and dismissive. Jupiter as a business is attractive to investors precisely because of the fees generated by active customers not because of the number of holders or the current $JUP price. Success is measured in protocol revenue, not just holder sentiment.

The Jupuary vote passed clearly. Jupiter repeated multiple times throughout the year that only fee-generating activities would count toward qualification. That was the explicit promise.

One of the shadiest patterns in crypto is announcing snapshots far in advance specifically to create FOMO, drive activity, and farm more fees from users. We delivered that activity. We paid those fees. The snapshot (Jan 30, 2026) came and went.

Now, after the snapshot, in mid-February, a new vote is introduced to postpone/cancel it and crucially, only stakers can vote. This pits active fee-paying users against stakers/holders in a system where the very people who earned the reward have no direct say if they didn’t stake heavily.

That’s not just disappointing it’s highly unethical. It retroactively changes the rules after users have already performed under the original terms, while bundling it with team-friendly changes (paused emissions, buyback offsets) to make it more palatable to holders.

Power users aren’t farmers we’re the customers who make Jupiter viable.

10 Likes
31

It’s impressive how the Jupiter team manages to piss off everyone at the same time

This is another binary proposal that packages together various things that should be discussed and voted on separately. Extremely lazy work.

10 Likes
32

Need option that

  • Continue Jupuary
  • Stop Emissions
3 Likes
33

Just watched the rally a couple of times to make sure i understand what is going on


Im hoping this post is not misconstrued as FUD, cuz gahd knows i’ve been fudding the crap outta jupiter the last few weeks. That much i can admit

this post is about my honest thoughts

lemme start:

~~~~~~~~~~

Kash said: “We are not deciding unilaterally on anything.” Twice.

Yes, y’all aren’t deciding unilaterally on how to proceed, but you ARE deciding unilaterally on the two options that we have as a community on how to move forward.

Y’all announced that fee paying users had until the end of Jan to qualify for Jupuary. I am sure there are many users who used your products more because of this announcement, and now it may potentially be a “Sike! Thanks for playing” kind of scenario.

I personally did not farm harder just because of the announcement, but as a community member, it disturbs me that you’re willing to go back on your word after an official announcement, and its not the first time doing so.

It really is not a good look and erodes the trust of new and existing users/stakers.

No doubt, there were many first time users of Jupiter products due to your announcement, and this is the impression we want to leave them with if option 2 passes?

Maybe they hold and stake their jupuary allo, or maybe they jeet it
but renagging on your word is a surefire way to guarantee they’ll never come back. Yes your products are dope, but being slighted is also one helluva motivator


Furthermore, I dislike that the community only has 3 to 4 days to discuss these announcements/options. It is not even clear if any amendments to the 2 options can be made via discussions.

I had brought up this point in the past regarding the 2030/555 vote, where it felt very rushed and the community was given very little time to discuss anything.

Jupuary is already pushed back, so why not give the discussion period more time (at least a week)?

After all, the decision on how to move forward is a “high-leverage decision”. It should warrant more than just a few days for people to get up to speed, to gather their thoughts, then have a meaningful discussion. It is something the jupiter team and community will have to live with for the foreseeable future once its voted through


~~~~~~~~~~

the rally was supposed to provide more clarity

Siong brought up potentially ending buybacks in a post that came out in early january

It was not even confirmed today, or ever since his post, if buybacks will continue.

Yes, buybacks are still happening right now as we can see it happening daily via the litterbox, but it would be awesome to get confirmation if buybacks will continue for good to stop any speculation

~~~~~~~~~~

The word “indefinitely”

“pausing both team emissions and jupuary
indefinitely
”

“indefinitely” feels like a band-aid fix. Yes, no more dilution coming on-chain for the time being, but for how long? We are just delaying this whole discussion for a later date


As for absorbing any sells from mercurial stakeholders if option 2 passes, where does all of the JUP that gets bought back go?

Is it to the litterbox?

Is it to the team holdings?

You did say treasury will absorb it, but would love clarification/confirmation on this. (my assumption is its bought back using team funds/treasury so it’ll be team holdings and not the litterbox which is the community’s)

I am a big advocate for ELI5. It really provides clarity.

~~~~~~~~~~

meow said he’s surprised that a large part of the community doesn’t know about 50% rev are going towards buybacks/litterbox

thats a marketing/PR problem

and IMO y’all have been really fumbling public relations.

would be great to see this addressed, unless y’all really think you ain’t messing up here in this department

~~~~~~~~~~

ASR is confirmed to continue as usual through 2026. 50M per quarter for a total of 200M for the year.

THANK YOU for this

~~~~~~~~~~

To end, thanks for reading all of this if you made it this far

To be transparent, i WAS a near top 0.1% staker according to catalytics. My 7 day unstaking period concluded not long ago.

I am in no rush to re-stake my JUP to vote because I don’t agree with either of the options.

I would, however, change my mind if either of the options are amendable and if more time was given for a proper discussion to be had.

3ish days for a discussion over a proposal of this magnitude is simply not enough, and i hope that the jupiter team can agree on this.

14 Likes
34

Sorry, but is this confirmed or is this your suggestion?

I echo a lot of your thoughts friend, a truly great post. And reading the comments it’s incredible how one-sided the discussion is.

I posted another thread a couple of weeks ago requesting clarifications from the team - ignored.

The JUP team are making themselves completely uninvestable, no wonder the guy from ParaFi didn’t show up for the rally.

Constantly moving the goal posts and reneging on specific plans is just really painful to watch, they’re such a smart bunch obviously but how on earth are they being this short sighted?

Option 1 all the way. Just unlock the tokens as planned and let people choose whether to sell or buy. Litterbox sweeps up cheap JUP, supply overhang gradually becomes less and less of an issue and then hopefully brighter days for crypto generally come and the loyalists are rewarded.

It’s not rocket science.

8 Likes
35

this is confirmed.

kash said it during the rally when a community member asked about it

now whether or not they renag on this later on is a different story
but as of today, it is confirmed to be continuing

i like option 2 BUTTTTT jupuary NEEDS to happen. they gotta stick to their word

3 Likes
36

Option 2, for long-term orientation. Speaking for myself personally, my sentiment is pretty okay. Looking forward to get voting again. Catch ya up soon!

1 Like
37

In my opinion, it doesn’t matter how many tokens you have, when the price is low. You won’t sell them for such a low price, but you will keep them. So I think that voting for the second proposal will lead to an increase in the value of these and then we’ll talk about emissions and airdrops.

2 Likes
38

mmmm i think people are willing to cut their losses too cuz price could still always go lower lol

1 Like
39

vote option 2. large emission is not good for ecosystem. stop emission

1 Like
40

one founder states stakers are useless, they dont generate fees,
other founder announces proposal that has caused so much uproar by the “fee generating” users xD
like my question is why are you making the people hate jupiter.. not even pleasing one side just getting hate from all directions KEKW

-get the mercurial and airdrop people out as priority and thus acheieve a real clean slate,
not this delaying of the big issues constantly~

-no need to pause team vesting, real users and beleivers know team has best interest of jupiter and should be allowed access to their allo.
only tourists and the haters that you have self spawned against you say “team is dumping”
believers of the team and eco dont think this way at all..

-its high time we start talks about creation of buy pressure rather than waste energy on sell pressure futile talks. like if you make the token have a real use case in the eco then wouldnt everyone want to buy jup instead of sell jup!?
I do understand its almost impossible to find a good reason for even creating a good cause for the token,
no token in crypto is useful xD but the one team that can actually change that is jup team, so instead of focusing energy on sellers can we shift to building and creation of buy pressure which inherently is more productive/exciting/worthwhile to try than these emmission talks


3 Likes
46

The snapshot has been taken, and the airdrop should be given to users and stakers. Incentives for Jupnet remain in place.

Since the price has dropped by 90 percent, just give the JUP allocation to Mercurial holders so that all tokens are open on the market.

For the team, just give them SOL/USD They can buy JUP if they want to if they believe in the future of Jupiter, rather than giving them JUP directly.

3 Likes
47

This is just passing the buck because you spent too much on events like catlampur, lavish KOL deals, and ridiculous other trivial things. You should absolutely stop team emissions. You should also follow through with your financial obligations for jupuary. I for one will be talking to a lawyer about potential fraud claims in the USA if this ‘vote’ goes through.

doubt I’m the only one.

5 Likes