2026-01-03 10:24:10

The Jupiter project operations team recently sent a signal on social media, claiming that the $70 million invested in token buybacks last year had limited effects, and proposing a shift towards user acquisition and incentive mechanisms. This statement has sparked widespread discussion within the community.

On the surface, shifting from buybacks to growth incentives seems like a logical choice to optimize fund allocation. But upon deeper reflection, the issue becomes more complex.

The large token unlock pressure in 2026 has already become a sword hanging over the project. Without buyback funds as a buffer, can purely relying on incentives absorb this wave of selling pressure? Many projects in history have faced liquidity crises during similar unlock periods.

More importantly, the way the operations team is testing the community’s bottom line—using the "growth first" excuse to downplay the commitment to buybacks—appears somewhat passive. The gap between promises and execution often determines investors’ long-term confidence in the project.

JUP0.29%

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.

8 Likes

Reward
8
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasWrangler

· 01-04 11:24

yo, if you actually analyze the tokenomics here... $70m buyback doing nothing is demonstrably false narrative. they're just optimizing away the real problem lol

Reply0

WhaleInTraining

· 01-03 10:54

70 million USD wasted? I've heard this story too many times, just a different flavor with the same old tricks. The 2026 unlock... without a buyback to support it, it's really uncertain. It's said to prioritize growth, but I see it as passing the buck. History doesn't lie; similar pitfalls have been stepped into before. Promises and execution—there's a huge gap between them, enough to launch an aircraft carrier. This round is again a test of confidence. Here they go again, always talking about optimizing allocations, but what’s the result? If a liquidity crisis really hits, who will foot the bill? The tactics are becoming more and more obvious. So, is this a shift in strategy or a surrender?

View OriginalReply0

GasGrillMaster

· 01-03 10:51

$70 million wasted? That's awkward. --- It's the old trick of "optimization and allocation" again, ultimately because there's no money left. --- The wave of selling pressure expected to be unlocked in 2026 really can't be held back; relying solely on incentives? Dream on. --- Where's the promised buyback? Now you're changing your tune? This trust is wiped out immediately. --- The gap between promises and execution is so big, no wonder everyone is watching cautiously. --- It seems Jupiter is testing the bottom line; how many times can the community accept such "turnarounds"? --- Relying on incentives to absorb the unlocking wave, history has proven this trick doesn't work.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleSurfer

· 01-03 10:37

Spending 70 million without any movement, now trying to shift the blame to growth? The 2026 unlock is still hanging over us, can just fool users really work? Forget it, it's the same old trick, promises and execution are always worlds apart. This time they are truly panicking, the attempt to divert attention is too obvious. The question is about growth, but what about on-chain data? I can't see any. Buybacks really have no effect, or they just haven't been seriously executed. Someone needs to ask. Here we go again, let's wait until 2026, then we'll see if it's just hype or if there are real plans. Honestly, it's still about running out of money, just a different way to cut another wave. I don't believe you, do you even know what the fulfillment rate of your promises is? Growth incentives? Wake up, without real cash incentives, it's just air.

View OriginalReply0