$JUP Flirts with All-Time Low Amidst Controversial Governance Proposal

Jupiter cofounder Meow threw a cat amongst the pigeons on March 6, opening a controversial governance proposal that has even the most faithful $JUP holders asking questions.

What started as a supposedly simple proposal demonstrating Meow’s long-term commitment to building the Jupiverse has unravelled into Jupiter’s most polarizing debate yet—but not for the reasons you’d expect.

What is talent worth in the Web3 world?

The Proposal

The ‘Meow 2030 Lock-In’ vote is relatively simple at face value. In the proposal, Jupiter co-founder Meow suggests that he front the 280M $JUP allocated to ~65 new team members for long-term alignment, instead of sourcing these funds from Jupiter’s strategic reserve.

In return, Meow will receive a 220M $JUP token bonus, bringing his personal allocation up to 500M tokens, or 7% of the total supply. If the proposal is approved, Meow’s allocation remains locked until 2030, as opposed to its current unlock schedule.

With less than 24 hours remaining, the proposal is expected to pass. According to Flipside data, voters have indicated that they’re strongly in favor of Meow ‘locking in’ until 2030. 

However, that’s got nothing to do with why this proposal kickstarted such fiery debate and sent $JUP spiralling toward new all-time lows.

Why is the Proposal Controversial?

Often celebrated for transparency, Jupiter is perhaps regretting its decision to disclose how many tokens have been allocated to new team members. 

While growing its team through new hires and acquisitions, the Jupiter team has set aside 280M $JUP tokens, vested over 3-4 years to new team members. Jupiter’s newest team members have confirmed that these tokens are a bonus on top of base $USDC salaries and are subject to performance.

At current market prices, this equates to an average bonus of around $60,000 per month paid in $JUP.

Network participants have expressed considerable outrage toward the Jupiter team’s compensation and bonuses. Detractors have argued that such lofty bonuses aren’t consistent with the amount of value these new team members could provide, and shouldn’t come at the expense and dilution of existing $JUP holders.

Between a polarizing vote and the lingering controversy surrounding the team’s alleged involvement and enablement of memecoin pump-and-dumps, including $LIBRA and $MELANIA, $JUP is suffering. $JUP’s market value has succumbed to new lows, dropping over 19% since the proposal went live to currently trade hands at $0.492. 

But the pain might not be over for Jupiter holders just yet. According to Flipside data, the amount of $JUP tokens being unstaked from its voting platform have surged to all-time highs, with over 80M $JUP expected to be released into markets over the next 30 days.

Key Figures Come Out to Support Jupiter

While social media is rife with community members slandering the team’s approach to compensation, notable figures from across the industry have come out in Jupiter’s defence.

6th Man Ventures lead Mike Dudas remarked that the prevailing FUD surrounding the proposal highlights how little the average crypto investor knows about what ‘talent’ is worth. Dudas’ claims have been reinforced by Pudgy Penguins and Abstract CEO Luca Netz.

Jupiter co-founder Siong Ong reiterated this point further, stating that if Jupiter needs to be willing to pay to have a world-class team to compete with the likes of Web2 giants like Google and Meta.

Meanwhile, other Solana builders are standing by Jupiter. Tensor co-founder Richard Wu argues that Jupiter’s bonuses are “low given their success”.

In response to mounting criticism, Jupiter’s leadership team has acknowledged that they need to communicate better in the lead up to governance proposals. Meow claims that much of the unfolding controversy could have been avoided if community concerns were addressed ahead of time.

Jupiter’s governance drama has called into question the necessity of a DAO in the first place. The Jupiter DAO has been criticized in the past for a centralized DAO structure, wherein community members cannot exercise the right to create their own governance proposals.

Commentators now argue it's time for a complete overhaul of the Jupiter DAO’s structure and jurisdiction.

Read More on SolanaFloor

What’s next for Meteora?

Meteora Moves Forward with New Project Lead and Roadmap - When $MET?

Welcome to the Solana Ecosystem?