P.S. Let’s be honest, the Jupuary amount, as specified, is statistically insignificant to the JUP supply at this stage anyway. Many of us will add it to our stake at these prices to boot.
6 Likes
Zero net emissions yeah bro all I see here is jupiter trying to scam their users and bribing stakers with asr to pass their will. Is it truly 0 net emissions if asr continues? And if you care about jup so much why not pay the airdrop in solana or jupusd because the valuation of this last jupuary currently is not even upto 10% of the fees we paid then you can burn the entire 700m jup because am very sure that’s what is going to happen inevitably because no staker would vote to release jupuary when jup price goes back over $1
3 Likes
I thought we voted on Jupuary before. Four Jupuaries was the initial statement of the team, and the community voted for the Jupuary twice already (last two votes of 2024). Why not stop all emissions after Jupuary?
3 Likes
I agree with the pitfall of taking drastic actions during Bear Market
also analyze the success of token buybacks they have not worked well for JUP (price)
i would add one knee-jerk reaction that I feel. I detest when a promise is broken…or a deal is changed mid-term during the agreement.
that’s me but for the larger picture- for the DAO there is a reputational risk to consider if you change the advertised terms that loyal stakers have built their stake/HODL strategies around .
May be pre-emptive to change this now- particularly at the last moment (January-Feb) .
better to deliver as promised-retain trust and then open the discussion about change to the road map a year ahead of time….give stakers & loyal holders & investors & the rest of the degens time to adjust their plans
3 Likes
Bless is the Jupiter team for dealing with the trantrum y’all are throwing.
2025: “Price is down!! The team should really do something about it!!!”
>2026Q1: team offers to do something about it
“OMG they are asking US if we should cancel the THIRD airdrop!!! what a rug!!!"
And of course there are the hundreds of suggestions here and on twitter that effectively boils down to “the team should sacrifice! but not us, no no no, not us!”
No wonder nearly every founder admits in private that they wish they had never launched a token or done an airdrop.
And yes, times are tough:
Price when DAO voted for 2 more Jupuaries: $1.35
Price when announcement of this vote: $0.15
Only fools never course correct when things aren’t going well.
To the team: Keep on building, keep on your mission, ignore the noise. There is a silent majority that believe in you guys.
Just watched Meow on twitter with his latest video, talking about how this Jupuary wouldn’t be growing the pie?!
Dude is delusional; not only would you have been growing the pie but you could have also been adding new customers to stakers and supporters of your platform.
Instead of doing that, you’ve just royally pissed them all off. Well done genius!
Seems everyone wants to talk about how the stalker base has changed and that’s why we need this new vote - everyone knew the deal when they invested in JUP, it’s a total cop out. Shameful behaviour which will nuke your protocol.
3 Likes
Obviousl vote option 1
If you guys don’t airdrop we have no reason to trust Jup your just gonna be like Pump fun some scammers
5 Likes
Option two is clearly better. What the DAO and how you could support JUP holders is, instead of buybacks, allocating those funds from the net profit back to JUP stakers in the form of active staking rewards.
Just my two cents;
Every single time I used Jupiter this year… I thought “that’s some Jupiter points for Jupuary”
Should the airdrop be cancelled, I will stop using Jupiter all together.
I am not a big JUP staker (maybe 1000 tokens), nor am I some whale. But I was an every day Jupiter user (Ultra/Trigger/Earn).
$JUP won’t raise in price if it loses its users.
5 Likes
The team is very unhappy with having to do anything for the DAO and share funds with them. After all, they’d really like to buy up idiotic, dead projects themselves and dump the tokens who knows where.
After all, “nobody cares about their token like Jupiter.” XDDD. I remember a year ago you bought Drip Haus without a DAO vote.
Btw hows Drip doing rn? You bought them with 130k active users (bots), and now theyre down to about 16k in February.
You so easily bought a dead product, hyped up by Vibhu and full of bots. Anyone whos been to space knew it was garbage. And now you’re proposing to remove user incentives?
4 Likes
AKA royally screwing the fee paying users that the platform would be NOTHING without!
5 Likes
I’m going with option 2.
I believe this will be great for the project! It can reduce unnecessary panic selling and support a stronger $JUP price.
1 Like
Reasons why I am voting for Option 1: Continue with Jupuary.
-
The timing of this proposal is horrendous. Waiting until users were expecting the airdrop to bring this up instead of initiating the conversation in Q4 2025 or before is a horrible move, imo. This could have been handled WAY better, but unfortunately it was not. This is why many people feel like they have been baited-and-switched on.
-
The team used Jupuary as a marketing ploy to attract more users. Luring people in under the expectation of receiving an airdrop every January was the team’s own demise. They set the stage for this fiasco by overleveraging their cards on the Airdrop. Very bad choice if you did not intend to follow through on your promises.
-
The current state of DAO voting is a joke. It is not representative of the majority of the community. It is an oligarchy where the rich and wealth + team decide the outcomes for everyone. The name is DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization), which in theory is supposed to have no centralized authority. However, the current state of this DAO acts more like an OAO, an Oligarchal Autonomous Organization that favors the rich and wealth over the common users.
I have used Jupiter since it was a “sister” project of Mercurial. I have been around for a long time, but unfortunately these past few months have been the most disappointing for me so far. I wish everyone the best and much success.
3 Likes
I’m honestly disappointed with how this situation was handled.
Changing the direction of the airdrop right when the community was expecting it feels deeply unfair. This conversation should have happened months ago — not at the last minute when expectations were already built.
For many of us, the airdrop wasn’t just a bonus — it was part of the trust between the team and the community. When that trust is shaken, it’s not just about tokens… it’s about credibility.
Governance is supposed to represent the community, not just the largest holders. If outcomes are consistently decided by concentrated power, then calling it “decentralized” loses its meaning.
Loyal users supported this project for years. We promoted it, traded on it, and believed in its vision. The least we deserve is transparency, consistency, and respect for the expectations that were created.
I still want this ecosystem to succeed — but trust, once damaged, is not easily rebuilt.
We all knew option 2 was going to be a problem, since the market is down and most people have lost money. When people lose everything and they are banking on any crumbs they get to keep gambling, then they don’t get said crumbs, the addict brain detaches from reality and a full blown temper tantrum ensues.
Even though option 2 is the best way forward for them and all of us ‘right now’. You aren’t losing your JUP, if you take a breath and read the proposal, you will see the JUP isn’t being burned, isn’t being given to anybody else, it’s just a pause.
Hoping that someone on the team is able to read this message.
The two best things the team could do with Option 2 winning to build some goodwill with the community and its loyal users would be to:
#1 Communicate with us explicitly after the vote that the airdrop will not be cancelled it truly is just being postponed indefinitely
#2 Release the airdrop checker in the coming days
This would truly help with damage control and I hope the team will consider this. Thank you.
The “Net-Zero” Vote is a Breach of Trust: We Met the Criteria, Now Honor the Commitment
I am posting this because I believe the recent “Net-Zero Emissions” vote—specifically the decision to postpone Jupuary 2026 indefinitely—is a fundamental breach of the social and technical contract between this DAO and its users.
1. Retroactive Rule Changes are Unacceptable
In late 2024, the roadmap for Jupuaries in 2025 and 2026 was clearly established and approved by a vote. Based on that commitment, I and thousands of others spent the last year providing liquidity, paying swap fees, and staking our $JUP to qualify.
The eligibility window for fee-paying users ended on January 30, 2026. To hold a vote on February 22 to cancel the rewards after the users have already performed the work is the definition of a retroactive rule change. You cannot move the finish line after the race has been run.
2. The Illusion of Decentralization vs. Whale Governance
We are told this is a “community decision,” but the reality is that the largest $JUP holders—who have seen the token price struggle—voted to strip rewards from users to pump their own bags. This isn’t “supply discipline”; it’s a wealth transfer from the active users (who drive protocol revenue) to the passive whales.
By cancelling the airdrop to “save the price,” the DAO is effectively telling its most loyal users that their time and fees were a donation, not an investment in the ecosystem. This is a straight-up, despicable rug pull on their own community.
3. Legal and Ethical Precedents
In any other industry, promising a reward for specific actions and then refusing to pay after those actions are completed would be considered a Breach of Implied Contract.
Recent court rulings have shown that DAOs are not immune to consumer protection laws. If the DAO chooses to ignore its previous commitments, it opens the door for legal scrutiny regarding “Equitable Estoppel”—where users relied on a promise to their own financial detriment.
My Demand
The snapshot has already been taken. The work has been done. If the DAO wants to move to “Net-Zero” for 2027 and beyond, that is a fair discussion. However, the 2026 Jupuary was a guaranteed commitment.
I am calling on the core team and the DAO to reconsider this “postponement” and provide a hard date for the 2026 distribution. You cannot build a “world-class” protocol on a foundation of broken promises. It would be foolish to believe that the cost of defending the incoming class actions will be less than what you currently owe the community and thats IF YOU ACTUALLY WIN which you won’t because there has already been legal precedent in similar cases. Your extremely expensive defense attorneys will recommend you accept a settlement and you will bankrupt Jup. Do your whales a favor, do your fee paying members a favor, and do yourselves a favor and stick to the original agreement.