Jupiter's token buyback plan has recently sparked heated discussions in the community. Co-founder SIONG pointed out that over the past year, more than $70 million has been spent on JUP buybacks, yet there has been no significant increase in price. Instead of continuing to burn money in the secondary market, it's better to change the approach—redirect this funding toward user incentives.



How exactly to do that? SIONG's suggestion is straightforward: allocate rewards to current users for their activity, while also attracting new users. Will this approach work? He plans to pass the ball to the community and hear everyone's thoughts.

Toly, co-founder of Solana, then shared his opinion. He emphasized that the difficulty of capital accumulation is seriously underestimated. Looking at traditional finance, building a meaningful capital scale often takes over 10 years. This view seems to defend the long-term nature of large buybacks but also indirectly acknowledges the limited short-term effects.
JUP-4,58%
View Original
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.
  • Reward
  • 8
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
SchrodingerPrivateKeyvip
· 01-06 16:06
70 million invested with no movement, now that's the most heartbreaking part.
View OriginalReply0
GhostAddressMinervip
· 01-04 23:15
$70 million poured in is just a numbers game; on-chain footprints have long shown where the funds are going... Do you really think the secondary market can absorb it?
View OriginalReply0
SpeakWithHatOnvip
· 01-03 16:53
$70 million went down the drain? This move is indeed outrageous... It's still more reliable to motivate users.
View OriginalReply0
WhaleShadowvip
· 01-03 16:52
$70 million went down the drain, this is Web3 for you, really outrageous. Shifting focus to user incentives is actually smart; compared to throwing money into the secondary market, this approach is definitely more reliable.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-2fce706cvip
· 01-03 16:49
70 million invested without causing a price surge—that's the real truth of the crypto world. I've always said that buybacks in the secondary market ultimately just pay transaction fees to exchanges, and the real factors that can drive prices up are the ecosystem and user stickiness. SIONG's recent ideas are quite clear-headed; shifting towards user incentives can indeed help grow the cake, but the problem is—ultimately, the incentive money will still be dumped on exchanges for sale. Toly's 10-year cycle theory sounds sophisticated, but in reality, it's just an endorsement of the current situation.
View OriginalReply0
SwapWhisperervip
· 01-03 16:46
$70 million poured in and the price didn't move. Isn't this a classic case of "buying lessons with money"? Haha This method of incentivizing users seems effective to me, much better than watching the market decline every day. Toly's words sound like he's making excuses for himself—10-year cycle... how many brothers can wait 10 years now? Can user incentives really retain people, or will it eventually revert to the old airdrop routine? Anyway, that's how the crypto world is—if buybacks don't work, then incentivize; if incentives don't work, then... what do you think?
View OriginalReply0
BoredRiceBallvip
· 01-03 16:39
Invested $70 million with no movement, this operation is indeed a bit awkward... Instead of continuing to cut the leeks, it's better to give benefits directly to users, at least they can feel it.
View OriginalReply0
ApeWithNoFearvip
· 01-03 16:33
$70 million wasted is truly outrageous; it's better to just airdrop to active users directly.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)