Jupiter's founding team recently raised a rather thought-provoking question: last year, more than $70 million was spent on JUP token buybacks, yet the token price still showed little improvement. Now they are considering that instead of continuing to spend money on buybacks, it might be better to allocate this budget to user growth incentives—whether for acquisition or retention, direct incentive mechanisms could be more immediately effective. Of course, this decision isn't solely up to the project team; it ultimately depends on a community vote. Whether to continue with buybacks or shift to incentives, how this discussion will evolve depends on the wisdom of the community.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
24 Likes
Reward
24
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
NFTBlackHole
· 01-06 05:41
70 million dollars wasted? This buyback strategy is indeed disappointing. Instead of stubbornly holding on, it's better to shift towards incentives. Let's see how the community votes.
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketHustler
· 01-05 23:07
70 million invested and the coin price still hasn't moved, hilarious. This buyback truly was a waste of money.
---
Instead of just pumping the coin price, it's better to recruit people. I agree with this logic; incentivizing users is the real key.
---
Community voting? Uh... it still depends on how the big players vote. Don't fool yourself.
---
Finally, there's a project willing to admit that the buyback scheme isn't working anymore. It's rare to see such clarity.
---
I just want to know if the incentive budget will actually be implemented or if it's just another slogan.
View OriginalReply0
HodlOrRegret
· 01-03 09:53
70 million dollars went down the drain, and you're still asking? Just invest in incentives; users are the key.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-ccc36bc5
· 01-03 09:52
70 million spent on buybacks, but the price still hasn't moved. How embarrassing is that... It's better to use the funds for user incentives, at least you can see the popularity increase.
View OriginalReply0
MissedTheBoat
· 01-03 09:35
Putting in 70 million is just like not putting in anything; it's quite ironic. The buyback strategy has long been outdated.
Jupiter's founding team recently raised a rather thought-provoking question: last year, more than $70 million was spent on JUP token buybacks, yet the token price still showed little improvement. Now they are considering that instead of continuing to spend money on buybacks, it might be better to allocate this budget to user growth incentives—whether for acquisition or retention, direct incentive mechanisms could be more immediately effective. Of course, this decision isn't solely up to the project team; it ultimately depends on a community vote. Whether to continue with buybacks or shift to incentives, how this discussion will evolve depends on the wisdom of the community.