New Proposal: Extend JET staking awards

Hello Jetters, as you might very well be aware JET staking awards program have finished this week. I’m creating this thread for the purpose of extending staking program up to March 31; post which we re-evaluate our thoughts on further staking rewards programs. JET has a VAST amount of tokens in its treasury for ecosystem growth purposes & I currently see NO better alternative to distribute these tokens for a valuable use. I have been a regular participant in JET DAO governance for a long time, and I have felt the last staking program to be really successful. There has been growth in diverse set of wallets, who have actively participated in on-chain governance/voting.

While the market has been in turmoil, JET token value dropping ~90% from ATH. The JET staking program has been a refuge for loyal JET holders. Loyalty like these should be rewarded appropriately. It’s clear JET is working towards shipping more code, unique products, and also finding the correct PMF, etc.

It is my earnest believe, extension of JET staking rewards works for the BEST interest of all the stakeholders involved in JET.

We can do rewards release at the same pace as we did with the last program OR we could boost it by 25% or 50% ; I’m in favor of increase the pace by 25%.

Please share your thoughts on this proposal as you see fit.


Thank you for taking time to write out the proposal @ezio .


Np, just doing my part as a true community member :slight_smile:

1 Like

I think this is a solid proposition.


Hi, I’ve been a jet staker since day 1 and watching closely where the protocol is going.
Indeed the staking program has been a shelter in this bear market :chart_with_downwards_trend: . Voters/stakers should be rewarded and the rewards should be extended, thank you @ezio for the proposal


Thank you for creating this thread Ezio!

I appreciate that you specified a date range for the reward period. I think it’s also important to specify a specific amount of $JET tokens that would be allocated to this reward period in your proposal.

I would also like to reference your comment in another thread to ask if you think this proposal is more or less important to incentivizing liquidity depth?

Not to say that we couldn’t both reward stakers and incentivize liquidity depth but with both of the ideas in play, one would have to happen before the other and it would be important to think of the amount of $JET tokens being allocated for both efforts.

Thank you again for starting this discussion!

1 Like

Liquidity depth and JET staking are complimentary in nature and by liquidity depth, I mean liquidity for assets that are listed on the money market of JET. One one hand we want liquidity to mature on JET so that it efficiently grows as money market, and on the same hand we have to agree and accept to the fact that there is no real liquidity in the market to due Fed’s Tightening policies. If we run aggressive liquidity incentive programs we will go against the current, which TBH will result in wasteage of resources. I say we start with minute APYs ~3%-5% on most of the assets so that we are able to slowly/organically grow liquidity while in the mean time we keep shipping out code and features, start exploring multichain avenues- Aptos, & SUI for starters, and once we have the MAJOR infra ready. We unleash a liquidity incentive program to rope in more liquidity, do a blitzkrieg growth(we should try timing this with QE), become the JP Morgan of Solana.

I say we run JET staking program firstly(maybe even simultaneously if we can) this will act as a sink for the emissions out of money markets while simultaneously accomplishing all the goals I mentioned in the root proposal of this thread.

Execute the JET staking program first, liquidity emissions in a month or two after consulting with Quants/Tokenomics experts.

Amount of emissions-
In the last staking program we emitted 13m tokens in 6 months or ~2.16mn tokens a month worth about 4.5mn USD

Let’s say we want to emit 4mn USD worth of token in the next five months…

That comes out to be 48899755 JET token at current price of $0.08180

Roughly 50mn tokens.

Now, 50mn tokens might appear quite a lot when contrasted against last staking program (nearly four times as much) but we also need to acknowledge that market isn’t really good, USD is the king and we’re only emitting at the pace of last program.

50mn tokens for 5 months a.k.a $800k a month is something we can tolerate as a DAO(as it is going to diverse set of people who have best interests of JET at heart), and appreciate it given the tough market conditions around.


totally pro extending the staking program …no intention of selling anytime soon, this Project deserves more exposure, Twitter is one of the best tools now to have more exposure if the team can work on that, would be awesome as well. Kudos everyone


I’m in agreement about extending the staking program. Thanks Ezio!

increasing the pace by 25% would be fine as it rewards the stakers, and long-term holders.

I think temporarily dealing with until March is a good idea.

1 Like

Sounds like a solid proposal, especially in the current environment.


Its important to incentivize LPs and long term Stakers


Would you mind sharing some data around the success and the growth of the diverse wallet set please?

1 Like

I don’t have the data first hand, as I don’t know where I can see the past on-chain governance votes, pretty sure JET team might have a log somewhere from which you can find on-chain governance votes for every proposal that has been listed here.

In the beginning, I remember there were only a few wallets that were participating in governance, but with every GOV vote, I feel a lot of new wallets(steady growth) have participated in governance.

1 Like

I have created an overview of the participation as well as the voted JET amount.


Some thoughts
-Staked Derivatives are relatively unknown, people might have avoided voting
-bear markets have hit people hard, some chose to sell and walk away.

We still have considerable amount of people(true believers) participating in the governance.

1 Like

Hey Ivan
Thanks for sharing this with us !
Interesting to see the percentages variations
I wonder where you got the Jet vote amounts, at first glance I can see some of them are not so accurate:
To be more clear: $USDC Poll: 7.46M + 71,479 = 7,531.479 JET, this leads to a 5.1 M difference with the results in the chart - $SOL Poll: 7.23M + 5,099.92 = 7,235.099 JET this also shows a 4.5M difference between the results. I took the amounts directly from the CSV archive from each poll and I also found: $soBTC = 2.49M - $USDT = 6.5M - $mSOL = 2.89 M - $ORCA = 4.52m
Happy contribute to document the participation for future proposals


Hm just checked and you are right regarding the current data but we have just discovered a bug.
I collect and analyze the gov participation from beginning and so are my data from immediately after the result.
The current CSV Archiv takes the current/staked JET Amount.
Compare the voting amount from the first proposal (USDC) and the last one (DAI).

My data/charts should be correct, otherwise let me know and i check & update it.

1 Like

What’s going on here is that voting happens in terms of number of shares of stake. Over time, the amount of JET that a unit of stake is worth changes (eg due to staking rewards).

This obviously makes it a bit complicated to compare participation in term of JET. You have to figure out how much JET the voting stake was worth at the time of the vote.


I think we need to be able to substantiate any statements made in the proposal.

Substantiating claims is and will always be the burden of the proposer and other proponents of any proposal. While the Jet Core team will likely build tools to make data and information more easily accessible both of their own volition and at the behest of governance, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect Jet Core to interrupt product development for individual data requests.

It’s also important to articulate an expected outcome. Without a quantifiable and measurable goal it’s not possible to reason about the success of the proposal.


Going to be honest here, I am not technical enough to substantiate diverse wallet growth, I’ve felt the quality of governance has improved. The JET rewards received have been mostly left unstaked and used for voting.

If data provided by @Ivan is correct; it means number of governance participants has declined, and I am wrong in my claims. I’m no one to judge who left/who still believes in the vision of JET. Everyone has their own way to handle bear season.

However, watching from the sidelines/engaging in proposals , I’ve felt elevation in quality of conversations which is good enough to understand the spirit of this proposal.

Anyways, I’ll leave this to the DAO to decide what they want to do in context of staking rewards.