I understand the concern about potentially corrupting the vote if the criteria are known beforehand, but I believe the opposite could happen if we vote without enough clarity. The vote should be based on informed decisions, and I think knowing at least some key aspects of the criteria (even if not finalized) would help us avoid misunderstandings or misaligned expectations after the vote.
Waiting until after the snapshot to form the criteria could lead to frustrations if the resulting distribution doesn’t meet community expectations. While I agree that there should be community discussion post-snapshot, having some preliminary guidelines or transparency beforehand could make the process smoother and ensure we’re all on the same page.
Involving the community early on, even before the vote, doesn’t mean we corrupt it, it means we empower stakers to make decisions with a clear understanding of what they’re voting on.
Thought the purpose of these ongoing debates are to have same conversations you are asking for? If that’s the case, isn’t it likely that the team do read these discussions/debate and get the flavour of what majority are thinking? Wouldn’t all these inform their thinking around structuring a criteria for Jupuary? If there wasn’t a forum for us to discuss these things like we doing now, we could be worry that there isn’t any pre-debate etc. The initial vote itself isn’t on the criteria but whether we want another Jupuary.
I agree that these discussions are really important, and it’s great we have a space to share our opinions. But my concern is that if we vote without any clear guidelines, we might end up deciding on something too unclear. These debates help us understand what the community thinks, but there’s a difference between discussing ideas and having clear options to vote on.
If the first vote is only about whether we want another Jupuary or not, we still won’t know what the distribution will look like, and that might make it hard for people to make an informed choice. I think having some basic information or possible scenarios before the vote would help ensure the decision reflects what the community really wants.
I’m not saying we need a full plan before the vote, but having some kind of framework would help avoid confusion or disappointment later.
I do like the idea of taking a snapshot before the vote. This will ensure that activity before a vote is what is counted not after. If and when the vote passes the farming shall commence! The full criteria is another issue. We will have to vote and discuss so I don’t see that happening, since it will be discussions and debates.
That’s the thing. Knowing the criteria is more of a PVP mindset. We are worried about price dumping or how it affects us. I think we first need to determine if a Jupuary is good for JUP first regardless of any criteria. Does it make sense to do a Jupuary or not? Once we determine that and if we determine yes than we can discuss criteria. That is my opinion.
In my opinion, Jupuary can no longer be seen as just a gift. This approach worked well last year because there weren’t people exposed to the token’s price, but things are different this time.
If the people holding or staking $JUP end up getting a smaller portion of the airdrop compared to those who use the platform, and the price drops, would it still feel like a gift to the stakers or holders?
I know this might sound a bit radical, but why should people who don’t hold or stake $JUP be part of the Jupuary?
For example, does Solana pay $SOL to people who simply use the blockchain?
I by no means am suggesting that those who stake JUP should not receive an airdrop. My point was that we first need to determine if an airdrop is good for JUP. Once we determine that than we can discuss criteria. I would definitely want staking to receive some form of an airdrop. I certainly would vote for it haha.
All those reactions about Jupuary are way exaggerated. If you trust JUP, you don’t have to worry about Jupuary. We all know that criteria will be fair and by fair I mean to avoid farmers… If we know the criteria before the vote, I just hope the snapshot will be already taken otherwise all the people will start farming and Jupuary going to be so useless.
I completely agree with your point. Jupuary last year was about building a community and generating excitement, but now it’s about rewarding those who are committed to the project. Those who have held or invested their money in $JUP, even through market fluctuations, should be prioritised this time. These are the people who believe in the long-term vision and have shown their loyalty.
If we continue to give large amounts of $JUP to those who haven’t invested in the token or aren’t staking, it risks devaluing the commitment of current holders and could negatively impact the token’s value. The airdrop should reflect the contributions of those who’ve stuck with the project and supported its growth, not just those who use the platform without the same level of commitment.
I think it’s important to recognise the difference between platform engagement and financial investment. While both are valuable, the risk and dedication shown by investors and stakers need to be rewarded more significantly. Otherwise, we risk alienating the very people who have helped to sustain the project, and that could be detrimental in the long run.
It is not radical at all, friend. This is common sense. No product pays it’s users, it’s kills the whole purpose. Is Samsung paying me for buying a refrigerator? I mean I use all the features, every nook and corner. If Jupuary#2 was PPP or even viable, I should be rewarded by Samsung investors by issuing new shares just to the users, which I would then dump on the said investors to make my money back.
Gaming the system or opportunistic farming will always happen where its announced that there will be a drop. Its just human nature, we just need to accept it. The whole magic about airdrop is that when there is no info of airdrop known, it creates more organic activity, prevents gaming the system (in case criteria is know) and creates positive surprise when it comes.
The only thing we need to know for the vote is what are the implications of a YES or NO. Simple as that. +Let JUP be home for all our activity on the platform.
You’re talking token distribution, yes! But out of those 50%, how many are going to be stacked? I bet more than we think because people understood the value of JUP and with ASR continuing until end of 2025, people will keep their JUPUARY allocation stacked I’m pretty sure
