lot of great ideas and points in here! very much appreciate everyone keeping it respectful
have been monitoring this thread with the team and put together a great FAQ with the great Mei here: https://x.com/9yointern/status/2022890424009146557
1 Like
Lets make a hybrid version
Option 1 and 2 happen the same time
Make the airdrop proceed since the DAO already voted - you had the option that who not touch it for 1 year will get the portion of the other half - so why not make it vesting 12 month and also Option 2 goes life.
What was the plan behind the 555? 5$ for $Jup? Execute it - make it incentive to ppl invest to $Jup. Revshare from fees equity token - anything which makes jup more shiny.
The problem is what I see you also dont even onow what to donwith $Jup. Lets make clear vision and future and execute it - while wont make your real community dissapointed!
Long live $Jup!
I have an idea that might help. Since instead of announcing the drop you announced that you donât give it anymore which is feeling like a huge betray tbh, we can sort it out in other ways. Just send the drop but not directly to the wallet but in automatic staking for each wallet. Minimum lock 6 months or 1 year, and in order not to have a huge sell out just unlock randomly. For some after 6 months for some after 7, for some after 10 months but not longer than 15 months. And you can post that this will be the last drop until new changes come. Then everyone is satisfied. Everyone will get their drop, everyone is informed that wonât be another, everyone will get extra some from staking, you wonât face sellouts, etc
1 Like
i think you should still write your post. The more the merrier
appreciate you pal. i am sure they wills see it
Putting aside emotions (which is difficult to do given various disappointments), my TLDR response is to ask why only part of the problem is âaddressedâ and not the other part (mentioned by many, over many months, even years). 1. Emissions (addressed in this part) but 2. Utility/value accrual processes of the token itself?
As for this (half) address of the issue, I would say, although late in the day, a moratorium on emissions would be a good thing, but who is voting on this (if this includes team members/whales, then is the vote outcome not already decided? If there is a ânoâ vote to the moratorium I am personally running for the hills. Above all, Trust is something, that once lost, is difficult to earn back, but letâs see what happens over the coming days and weeks.
One thing which I donât think has been mentioned yet which I think should be a key consideration⌠If Iâm understanding correctly, option 2 basically says the team will buy all the emissions from sellers in the Team and Mercurial cohorts as they unlock, if those people want to sell.
Itâs sort of hard to opine on how risky this is without knowing more about the treasury and how much the team have in the bank, but Iâd have thought that during a potential bear market you would want protect the treasury as much as possible, keep your powder try in order to maintain runway for the team to keep building during the bear. You donât want to be wasting money (short term view) on buying tokens you may not want to be buying (nobody knows what will happen over the next months and years). Option 2 may also have significant knock-on impacts on how much users use the protocol, given quite a lot of people (myself included) think this is incredibly shady behaviour on the teams part - we donât know yet what the impact will be, and you certainly donât want Sionng having to tweet about shelving the buybacks because the team has ran out of money.
This is essentially transferring risk from the market and individual sellers, to the protocol, which is hugely significant and should be considered. This again, aligns with my overall view that Option 1 is by far the better bet. Just get the airdrop and emissions out of the way, donât kick the can down the road, and let market forces dictate price (if nobody is interested in selling at these levels why is it even an issue?).
The furore thatâs been created completely unnecessarily is just another distraction and example of poor PR from the team. Reputation is everything.
3 Likes
What this proposal lacks is numbers. In her article, Mei mentions the 2026 emissions would total ~1.2B $JUP. 700M are Jupuary, leaving 500M to split between Team Vesting and Mercurial Vesting.
Seems like (per tokenomist) the total Mercurial Vesting was 350M and we are halfway through so in 2026 it would be 175M, making it 325M for Team Vesting. So, are these 2026 numbers correct?
-
Jupuary 700M
-
Team Vesting 325M
-
Mercurial Vesting 175M
Now, letâs add context (Blockworks):
-
Total supply = 6.864B
-
Circulating supply = 3.244B
-
JUP staked = ~800M
This proposal is therefore about not adding ~1.2B to the circulating supply over the period of 2026, but itâs not like 100% of that would be sold, right? Some would be staked, some would be held (coz who would wanna sell at this price), and only portion would be sold. Plus, it is only the Jupuary portion that would be a big-bang type of event (softened if dropped staked), with Team and Mercurial vestings happening gradually throughout the year.
Could you please share your opinion on when the timing would be right for unlocking the tokens, or at least under what market (or other) conditions you would find it appropriate to unlock that $JUP? Thanks 
1 Like
Completely agree. The 700m for Jupuary is wildly misrepresented, theyâre only dropping 200m and 200m is reserved next year for those who stake it. The other 300m is reserved for JupNet but maybe this is another carrots and we just never hear about it again.
Youâd imagine a lot of people would stake for the bonus given price is depressed, but worst case itâs only 200m being dropped in March.
3 Likes
All this should have been easily communicated earlier, itâs all drama everyday bcos of lack of proper communication from the team, users have been optimistic for jupnuary while other are suffering from team and stakeholders emissions.
4 Likes
I really like this vote.
I personally think option 2 is a good way to address the current token performance. I understand the market is down, but I believe the current state of emissions further bring down the token value.
Additionally, the Jupuary is not cancel only postponed. Therefore, there can be further discussions as to better appropriate the allocation.
I know many stakers are concern as to why they are getting way far less than users. So, by postponing the Jupuary can give a chance to re-evaluate criteria with the snapshot already taken. I personally believe, time weighted stake Jup (specially if never unstaked) should be considered more than just quantity alone.
1 Like
Such a good take,
So essentially if option 2 passes,
Users get nothing for fees generated, bc these fees/revenue will be used for buying up every team dump. Kind of crazy lol.
2 Likes
I agree, we should at least have a compromise option rather than an all or nothing approach. The current proposal forces us to choose between the airdrop or no emissions at all. This pushes people who want to support the token to vote for option 2 because the first option will lead to no reduction in emissions. This is a blatant manipulation by the team to ensure Jupuary never goes ahead, betraying the users who are the backbone of Jupiterâs revenue.
4 Likes
The âGoing Greenâ Wager: Are we sure the product is enough?
Iâve been a consistent user of Jupiter for some time nowâlong enough to realize that this is far and away the best product on Solana. Itâs the reason I use this platform almost exclusively for my trading and staking.
However, Iâm looking at this âGoing Greenâ proposal with a mix of optimism and concern. To me, this feels like a fundamental pivot from a Community & Culture-first model to a Product-first model. Up to this point it seems Jupiterâs identity was tied to shared cultural events like Jupuary. By proposing a âNet-Zeroâ emission plan, the leadership team seems to be showing a willingness to effectively end that era, betting everything on the idea that the productâs scarcity and utility are enough to sustain the Jupiverse without the âhypeâ of recurring community rewards. I believe the product is excellent, but if they are going to make this wager, it had better stay flawless. Alienating the community that showed up for the culture is a high-stakes move. Weâre trading vibes for mathâI hope the math is as strong as they think it is.
2 Likes
Hereâs why Iâll vote for option 2:
From the outset, every time I buy $JUP, I see it as a long-term investment, but I didnât like knowing that there was a year left before the all emisions ended.
Why wait a year to start raising the price?
With the âJupiter go greenâ + some uses for $JUP within the platform (Siong has said they are being integrated) + net 0 emissions + @litterboxtrust + the new fees of Jupiter Global + @Jupnet
DEFLATIONARY
All of this will make large companies interested in Jupiter, as ParaFi already did.
Jupuary was also going to give me a good amount of $JUP, but I know that in the long run this is the right thing to do.
Supply shocks are coming to $JUP.
I feel the Jupuary should be a vote by eachself and the Team Reserve and Mercurial to go ahead regardless.
Good recap of how they treated their most loyal community/users⌠Iâm in the same boat as you. We are about to get rugged so hard.
Thank you for the chance to vote on this, rather than just deciding unilaterally, which you technically could have based on the language of the vote.
Just a few questions to hopefully clarify what Option 2 would mean.
-
I understood Option 2, in the context of Option 1, to imply that allocations for the 200M JUP set aside to be liquid at claim date for this Jupuary have technically been determined, but will be released at a later date, when market conditions are more favorable and sentiment has improved. Is that right? If not, can you please clarify? If so, I think it would be helpful, in the spirit of transparency, that the amounts be revealed to recipients so that they know what they can eventually expect.
-
If I understood correctly, what will this mean for the 200M JUP bonus pool? Originally, it had been communicated that the bonus pool would be allocated to those who staked their allocation for the year. Since Option 2 would, at a minimum, effectively force staking for all of 2026 (~1 year), is the plan to have the full 400M JUP allocated to those who qualified and were/will be forced to stay staked, or to still have a bonus pool for whenever the 200M JUP is ultimately released + 1 year?
-
In the same vein, since those who qualified are essentially forced to stake, wouldnât it make sense to allow them to add this voting power to their staked JUP if Option 2 prevails? Shouldnât they have a say on any further votes this calendar year?
-
Similarly, why will ASR continue to NOT be impacted by voting record? I understood the decision not to do this for the second half of 2025, since it was communicated that voting would pause for the rest of the calendar year, but that period has passed. We should move back to Active Staking Rewards, emphasis on Active, for 2026.
-
What will happen to carrots? My assumption is that, since it was communicated that they, too, would be paused until when market conditions are more favorable and sentiment has improved, they should be included explicitly in the scope of Option 2.
-
Similarly, what will happen with the 300M JUP set aside for Jupnet incentives? My assumption is that these would by released alongside all other JUP in scope for Option 2, when market conditions are more favorable and sentiment has improved, but based on a different snapshot period, obviously. That is, a snapshot period of Jupnet launch date through a TBD end date, with the TBD end date being before the claim date, but the claim date will NOT be before any of the other JUP in scope for Option 2.
Thanks again for the chance to have a say. Would appreciate clarity on these points before the vote.
1 Like
I am in favor of option 2. I have staked every JUP myself, but I think it is important that we use every opportunity to stabilize $JUP.
Please let us not forget the discussion about further uses for JUP!
Paw in paw
JUP is home 
1 Like
My opinion is mixed.
Why isnât this a vote like should we delay Jupuary? yes or no.
Or should we have net 0 emmisions going forth yes or no?
I donât like how the vote is loaded, as many previous votes have been.
if yes: have jupuary, and itâs as if the net 0 is impossible. So if you want your airdrop, team is going to have permission to dump and we wonât absorb mercurial sell pressure either? How does that make any sense?
Or choose what we want you to choose, let go of your airdrop (for now) and if you do weâll give you this shiny golden ticket of 0 net new emissions (which we all want even if we donât know that we do.) This is completely inappropriate structure for the vote. And sadly, I donât think this incredibly common sense take is going to have any airtime as the vote is already set to go live soon.
Why not do both? Have Jupuary as planned, absorb team sells, merucurial investor sells, AND have 0 net emmissions going forth?
6 Likes