Proposal: Net-Zero Emissions

Jupiter DAO
68

2 is the option everyone should go for

69

stopping team emissions by buying them up using revenue (fees made by users bc of official announcements regarding jupuary eligebility and a snapshot date in advance to farm more fees) is unethical and kind of criminal behavior idk.

70

The thing i dont get is, why are u trying to please the angry mob who crys about „price is down“?

All the emissions are already priced in, this is how crypto works, this is why we are so low.

Longterm holders shouldnt cry about short term prices.

Jupiter’s move screams late-stage empire syndrome.

At the absolute bottom, leadership panics over angry holders & price dips instead of honoring the users who generated fees for a year, the real revenue engine.

  1. From what I’ve seen in crypto discourse and broader analogies, this term often describes decaying systems (empires, projects, or protocols) where leadership shifts focus from growth, innovation, and core contributors (users/revenue generators) to appeasing entrenched interests (holders, elites) through shortterm price protection, rule changes, and extraction ultimately accelerating decline.

  2. Real revenue comes from users grinding swaps, perps, DCA not from holder complaints. We were promised Jupuary for fee-generating activity. The Snapshot was announced early to create FOMO and harvest fees. We delivered.

  3. Bundling it with team pauses & Mercurial offsets? It’s prioritizing holder comfort over the users who actually funded the buybacks & growth.

Screwing the revenue generators to calm angry holders = empire eating itself.

Calling users farmers makes no sense at all, farming is swapping usdc and sol back and forth but this generates no fees.

For generating fees u have to risk. Risking is normal crypto behavior, like doing perps or trading new memecoins on ultra (0.5% fee) with a clear promise of maybe 1/20 compensation by jupuary.

In the end a Mans Word is his Bond.

4 Likes
71

Bundling these together seems like a shrewd way for leadership to either get what they want or blame the DAO for the continued decline in the token price. “Hey, we put it to a vote and the DAO opted for continued emissions,” when the vote would really be about wanting what is owed in the jupuary drop. How about you unbundle these and let people vote on them separately?

2 Likes
72

PLEASE READ IF YOU USED ALL YEAR LIKE ME

Hey Jupiter please listen i or we fully stand with your breakdown of the “Illusion of Choice” in Jupiter’s governance—it’s spot on how this proposal reeks of retroactive tweaks and manipulative bundling. BUT let’s flip the script and build a rock-solid case for why the DAO must vote for Option 1: Proceed with Jupuary 2026 as promised. This isn’t just about honoring a deal; it’s about rewarding the real backbone of the ecosystem—the fee-paying users who’ve powered Jupiter all year long, lured by that explicit airdrop commitment. Here’s the argument, point by point, to rally the community and ensure the airdrop checker opens up on schedule.

  1. The Promise Was Crystal Clear and DAO-Ratified—Honor It or Lose Credibility
    Back in December 2024, the Jupiter DAO overwhelmingly approved J4J #3: Jupuary Vote #2, locking in Jupuary 2026 with a massive 87% yes vote.6d3e4cae1c87 This wasn’t some vague teaser; it was a binding framework to distribute hundreds of millions of $JUP to active users, stakers, and participants who drove volume through swaps, perps, lending, DCA, and more. Throughout 2025, the team hammered home the message: "Use Jupiter, stake $JUP, engage in governance, and qualify for Jupuary."b85b4ed6b65b Fee-paying users like us took that to heart—we routed our daily trades, provided liquidity, and paid those fees exclusively on Jupiter, often forgoing cheaper alternatives, all because of this promised rebate in the form of an airdrop. Postponing it now (via Option 2) isn’t “listening to feedback”; it’s reneging on a ratified deal after we’ve already delivered our end. Voting Option 1 ensures the snapshot from the Catlampurr event stands, the checker launches around February 28, and distributions kick off March 7 with 200M $JUP base + 200M bonus for stakers.6fd2aac2cf3cca6fcd Anything less erodes trust and invites the very legal scrutiny you outlined.
  2. We’ve Earned It Through Real Usage—This Is Our Rebate, Not a Handout
    Jupuary isn’t charity; it’s a direct reward for the economic activity we generated. In 2025, users funneled billions in volume through Jupiter’s ecosystem—spot trades on Pro, perps, lending yields, mobile ultra swaps, limit orders, and even content creation about the platform.eb6bdfdcfd37 We paid fees on every swap, every borrow, every position, building Jupiter’s treasury and dominance on Solana. The team explicitly positioned Jupuary as a "rebate for using your platform,"816f7e381993 and we acted in good faith, often sticking to Jupiter over competitors like Meteora or others. Delaying the checker and airdrop (700M tokens back to multisig under Option 2)66d4ba robs us of what we’ve already earned. Option 1 respects that sweat equity: Open the checker, let us verify our allocations based on year-long usage, and distribute as planned. Without this, why bother with loyalty when promises evaporate in a bear market?
  3. Bundling Is Manipulation—Separate the Issues and Prioritize User Rewards
    As you nailed it, Option 2 holds Jupuary hostage by tying it to pausing team emissions and offsetting Mercurial vesting.f05af3080817 Sure, net-zero emissions sound noble for token health, but why force users to sacrifice their earned rewards to “fix” team-created inflation? The team can address their allocations separately—burn or pause them without touching community distributions. Voting Option 1 rejects this false choice: Proceed with Jupuary independently, reward the users who’ve fueled growth, and handle team/Mercurial issues in a follow-up vote. This maintains decentralization without the gaslighting. Community sentiment on X and forums echoes this—users are calling out the breach of the 2024 vote and demanding the original plan be honored first.eb7267ac53b76a9e68
    x.com
  4. Long-Term Token Health Starts with Trust—Not Exit Liquidity for Insiders
    The “balance sheet” buybacks in Option 2? It’s just subsidizing team sales with protocol funds while users wait indefinitely.f6a061 True token conviction means rewarding the community that built it, not postponing distributions to juice short-term price action. Jupuary 2026, with its 300M for JupNet incentives too,ca4b18 will bootstrap ecosystem growth and attract more users, far better than vague “net-zero” promises. We’ve documented the promises, the usage, and the fees paid—if Option 2 wins, it validates every concern about governance fraud and could spark those complaints to authorities.
    Call to Action: DAO voters, stake your $JUP and vote Option 1 starting February 17 (vote ends Feb 21).a820e1f8e202 This opens the airdrop checker for all who’ve earned it through faithful usage. Jupiter thrives on community, not top-down pivots. Let’s enforce the original deal and build real decentralization. Spread this in the forums, on X, and beyond—see you at the vote!
6 Likes
73
  1. stop the bleeding, there in no known universe where the spend on jupuary justifies the cost
  2. ignore the e-beggers, they just want something for nothing
  3. don’t postpone and burn, get serious and instead of giving it back to the same people who made these bad decisions just burn them which shows you are actually serious about fixing $JUP
74

Voting YES — Structural Monetary Upgrade

As a seven-figure $JUP holder, this is a clear YES.

This proposal shifts Jupiter from inflationary token mechanics to disciplined supply governance. In the current liquidity environment, emission control is alpha.

• Net emissions ≈ zero → structural repricing

• Treasury absorbing vesting → no reflexive float shock

• Jupuary pause → removal of predictable sell pressure

• Team reserve freeze → real alignment

Scarcity + revenue + market dominance on Solana is a powerful combination.

Most projects dilute.

Jupiter is choosing capital discipline.

This is a must-pass governance vote

Voting YES.

2 Likes
75

I feel bad for everyone who lost everything believing in Jupiter and maybe with the Airdrop they can start again? Jupiter has just confirmed their real feelings toward poor people.

2 Likes
76

Option 3: Cut Team Vesting Emissions to only what is absolutely necessary (think Elon takeover of Twitter/Department of Government Efficiency) and proceed with Jupuary airdrop as originally planned.

1 Like
77

Well I was attending the JUP Rally yesterday. The sentiment was rather clear. People are expecting the airdrop. Not giving the promised airdrop will undermine the trust even more. Unresolved matter of Carrots for JUP wallet user still is pending. What happened to that tokens? Why it wasn’t communicated in a clear fashion? Why new big boss is posting things on his X not taking into account the gravity of his words?

Option 2 at first seems like a hard pill to swallow, bitter medicine that will make you better in the end. But well postponing Jupuary and pausing Team Reserve will not solve anything.It will just move the problem in time. Why do we need a vote to convince the team not to dump their own tokens anyways?

indefinitely - like forever or not specified time? It’s very tricky word to use. I would prefer the solid date!

My notions: proceed with the air drop as planned.

Stop DAO emmisions in JUP, introduce revenue sharing in JLP or JUPUSD

Resolve the Carrots situation

Pay more attention to your own commitments and respect them.

Pspspspspsps :smiley: be a good Cat!

6 Likes
78

Thanks to the Jup team and Meow for putting up this proposal. Even though canceling Jupuary is controversial, I think it’s the best outcome for all JUP holders.

I like the idea of Option 2, but I’d suggest rephrasing it to tie the incentives more directly to revenue generation for the DAO. As currently phrased, I worry the JUP treasury could be used to facilitate team exits at all cost, rather than incentivize external revenue growth.

Additional idea: What if another OTC product is launched, tied with the lock product with an decentralized OTC desk that lets users bid to purchase discounted jup tokens from Mercurial and team members ? This could be developed for other tokens too. It would be really cool to see this integrated into Jupnet so OTC collateral could also be used for trading.

at last, i think there is a missing piece : Jupnet strategy.
what will be the tokenomics strategy for Jupnet ? Even if this should be integrated in a separate proposal, there is some clarity needed on how jupnet will work. From what I understand, it’ll be a decentralized network, so that implie staking? Inflation? also there will clearly need to be incentives for people to use it at launch ( recycle the Jupuary allocation for JupNet?) Or add a portion of the DAO token supply for some inflation to secure the network (HL like) ?

Otherwise, still think the best incentive for people to use jupnet would be the “token go up” technology, and I think Option 2 has the better framework for that.

1 Like
79

I support the core pillars of Option 2 in pursuing Net-Zero emissions:

  • Indefinite pause of Team Reserve emissions.
  • Internal absorption of team token releases, ensuring they remain net-neutral for the $JUP ecosystem.
  • Neutralization of Mercurial stakeholder vesting through protocol-led balance sheet purchases.

However, to preserve Jupiter’s social contract and long-term credibility, I’d suggest the following refinement:

Proceed with the initial 200M JUP liquid distribution for Jupuary 2026, honoring the January 30 snapshot and the expectations of fee-paying users & stakers, and return the remaining 500M JUP (Bonus Pool + Jupnet incentives allocations) to the Community Cold Multisig in alignment with the Net-Zero objective.

This preserves credibility while reinforcing emission discipline.

Also, looking beyond this vote, to reduce long-term uncertainty around $JUP, the following strategic questions should be clarified shortly after this decision:

  • Team Reserve Reactivation Criteria
  • Posture & Forward Path for the Returned 500M JUP
  • Buyback Policy & Litterbox JUP Utilization

Rapidly resolving these structural points, whether through team communication, roadmap updates, or governance, would strengthen long-term confidence and reduce recurring speculation.

2 Likes
80

There’s a lot of criticism and empty talk. So, what do you propose to do?

81

However, in order to not only preserve Jupiter’s social contract and its long-term reputation, but also to prevent the JUP price from falling below an acceptable level, which would lead to a critical loss of trust in the token, an airdrop will be held for 2025, but the issuance of these tokens will be frozen for at least one year.

82

I see a lot of criticism and it all seems to stem from a what I am owed approach. I feel these same concerns would be brought up if they did not receive the amount that they feel they deserve. To be upset about not getting free money from using a product I don’t understand. But let’s talk about the proposal.

Option 1 continue as usual. As we see usual is not working. This option is designed to help reinvigorate the token. If we continue we can ot expect anything new. Each year Jupuary has caused more hard.

Option 2 Reinvorgate the token. Net zero emissions. If you hold the token what is the negative. Will it pump who knows, but it’s something and it shows a genuine concern. Yes the team can cash out but Jupiter is taking that risk and the same with Mercurial investors. Net zero emissions along with a buy back has me intrigued on what that can do.

So the options are vote for the same and expect the same result lower price diluted token and more outrage as the price drops, or something new revolutionary some hope in the token and for holders and those who believe in the the Company and product. Couple this with utility and we have something here!

83

I’m not a lawyer but I would think JUP/DAO has all the right to postpone or even cancel a free airdrop for any reason.

1 Like
84

I do not think its a good idea to postpone this Jupuary until further notice. This will create uncertainty and erode trust which will likely create more sell pressure than added emissions. The time to put forward a proposal like this would have been several month ago before people committed time and capital. Taking steps to reduce emissions going forward makes sense. However, at this point, the original Jupuary vote needs to be honored. Almost every token is in the garbage right now. Not just JUP. Obviously something structural broke on 10/10 and the crypto markets have not yet recovered. Investor’s confidence is in the dumps. Honoring commitments is one step towards showing accountability. Dishonoring commitments will further damage confidence. Also, lets be honest, Jupiter tech is awesome, but there are other excellent Dex’s, lending/borrowing apps, perp markets and wallets on Solana. I’m concerned that Option 2 could push users away from Jupiter and the JUP token. Sentiment is down right now, but this too shall pass. Keep calm and JUP on.

5 Likes
85

Why are we bundling a long-term supply fix with a short-term commitment breach?

I appreciate the leadership’s focus on the long-term health of the $JUP token. The vision of reaching net-zero emissions is a powerful narrative shift that we need. However, the current structure of this vote (Option 1 vs. Option 2) creates a false choice that feels less like governance and more like an ultimatum.

The Problem with Bundling

By grouping the postponement of Jupuary with Team/Mercurial lockups, leadership is forcing the DAO into a “poison pill” scenario:

1. The Trap: If we want to support the token by stopping team emissions, we are forced to vote against a promised community airdrop.

2. The Scapegoat: If the DAO chooses Option 1 because they want the distribution they earned through usage, and the price subsequently dips, the narrative will be “The DAO chose emissions over health.”

This isn’t true decentralization; it’s a shrewd way for leadership to either get their way or shift the blame for future price action onto the community.

Proposal: Unbundle for Real Consensus

If these actions are “most effective when done as a package,” then the community should be allowed to endorse the pieces of that package individually. Let us vote on:

• Vote A: Postponing Jupuary indefinitely.

• Vote B: Pausing Team Reserve emissions and utilizing the balance sheet for buybacks.

• Vote C: Accelerating and offsetting Mercurial vesting.

Conclusion

We are told $JUP is the “shared alignment engine.” If that’s true, don’t force us to choose between our “alignment” and our “incentives.” If the team has conviction that stopping team emissions is good for the token, they should be willing to do that regardless of whether Jupuary happens or not.

Let’s unbundle these votes and let the DAO make a real, nuanced decision.

4 Likes
86

I am a long term holder and a very casual user. I stand to gain very little in Jupuary rewards other than staking. I don’t like seeing users being labeled as farmers. We willingly provided an incentive for people to use the protocol. We should not be surprised when they ask for what was promised and we should not modify the rules because it is inconvenient for us, the token holders. This proposal could be interpreted as :

Option 1) Rule of law
Option 2) Mob rule

There are 300 million Jup set aside as incentives for Jupnet. Should users be expected to take that commitment seriously? Perhaps we’ll just change our minds and delay those rewards indefinitely as well at some point. The jupuary commitments were made and they included a timeframe. People don’t forget being lied to and they shouldn’t forget. To me being long term aligned means being unconcerned with short term price. Trading credibility for short term price stability feels like the opposite of investing. Users need to come before token holders

Secondly, as others have pointed out, the wording of this proposal feels manipulative and disingenuous and it makes me suspicious. If the team wants to use revenue to buy Jup from Mercurial holders or from team members that has always and unquestioningly been within their purview. There is no need to vote on that and it could happen regardless of the outcome of this vote. If there is to be a vote (which there shouldn’t) it should be:

Option 1) Proceed with Jupuary
Option 2) Delay Jupuary indefinitely

The current proposal reads as the team trying to get the DAO to rubber stamp an idea they want approved so they can wash their hands of it and claim not guilty. In reality it is a proposal to see if the DAO can take away the knife to prevent the protocol from committing reputational seppuku.

Finally I just want to say that in spite of my suspicions I am sympathetic with the team here. I imagine it is very stressful when the token price is down and everyone is pissed off and yelling at you. A lot of us are down bad and I’m grateful the team is acknowledging that and searching for solutions. IMHO focus on building the protocol and on building trust and just let the token price be a reflection of that. Have faith that in the end it will turn around. Iterate on the protocol, not on our commitments

It will probably be bad for my bags short term, but GIVE THE PEOPLE THEIR TOKENS!

:folded_hands:

4 Likes
87

It’s a scam; what is promised is due. You will lose your regular users who generate real revenue for you. Stop 0 emissions by 2026 is false, and what about 2027? And if Bitcoin drops to 40k, it won’t prevent JUP’s price from being controlled; it will go to 0.05 ct. Did we stop Bitcoin emissions when it fell to 15k some time ago? No, that did not prevent it from rising to 120k because user trust remained the same. Thinking that emission and price are related is stupid. At some point, the price will find its balance between emission and value, and pushing it up temporarily to raise the price is absurd. It’s better to have low prices to sell large quantities of tokens than high prices; that extracts less money from your protocol. Option 1: You must stick to your commitments; trust is the most important thing.

3 Likes