- Some users criticize Jupiter’s token launch method, claiming a lack of transparency and resemblance to a capital-raising sale.
- The project defends its approach, emphasizing fairness for airdrop recipients and buyers, while admitting to miscommunication on price range.
- Despite criticism, others support Jupiter’s vision and tokenomics, highlighting its long-term goals and community involvement.
Following Jupiter’s airdrop, concerns emerged about the JUP token launch. Critics allege the team used the open market for capital raising without fully informing participants.
They used JUP as a base for DeFi 2.0, focusing on expansive growth, ecosystem initiatives, governance, and decision-making.
This method, involving “moon protection” to limit initial price, sparked questions about transparency and informed decision-making.
Team Defends Strategy, Admits Mistakes
Jupiter founder “meow” clarified that an OTC deal or IDO could have secured more funds. However, their strategy aimed to provide a substantial pool for airdrop recipients to sell and for buyers to absorb the selling pressure.
“We, as a team, take on the risk that we have zero certainty about how much we will actually end up with because the community and those who have buyer remorse get first dibs,”meow wrote
GraffirapNFT accused the team of using the ICO to drive fake demands.
meow admits the mistakes made by the team in choosing the price range in which the token was launched.
While acknowledging communication missteps on the price range, they emphasized risk-taking for the team and prioritizing the community.
Support Amidst Scrutiny
Despite criticism, several voices defend Jupiter’s vision and tokenomics. They appreciate the focus on DeFi 2.0, expansive growth, and a community-driven governance model. The “50/50 Tokenomics” and planned cold wallet release demonstrate a commitment to long-term sustainability and community involvement.