On February 13, 2026, the Jupiter team proposed a controversial proposal under its DAO governance framework: attempting to reduce the net release of JUP tokens to zero. This means that the team actively tightens future supply pathways beyond the established distribution plan, triggering significant concern from the entire community. According to currently available information, the governance voting window is expected to fall between February 17 and 21 (information from a single source, still pending verification from more channels). Multiple different plans are presented in parallel, forming a public game around the fate of the token. The real pull behind the proposal lies between the distribution expectations made to the community during the Jupuary events and the inflationary pressures and supply curve reshaping that must be faced for long-term sustainability. Jupiter attempts to achieve self-rescue through a new narrative of 'net zero emissions,' while the community is forced to make a collective choice on pricing the future between 'fulfilling promises' and 'maintaining long-term value.'
The Shift from Jupuary Commitments to Net Zero Emissions
● Activity expectations and supply imagination: The initial Jupuary event was more like a 'ceremony of fulfilling commitments' in the community narrative, with many participants viewing it as a crucial window for mass distribution of tokens and user rewards. Although the official details of the total distribution and rhythm were not fully disclosed, the market still imagined the JUP supply path based on a framework of 'continuous release and gradual implementation,' which once reinforced the mindset that 'participation means having a share' on an emotional level, becoming a significant narrative pillar driving community diffusion.
● Psychological gap of rewritten rhythm: When the 'net zero emissions' proposal surfaced, many members first perceived not the suppression of inflation, but rather that the previously assumed release rhythm was rewritten. From some community perspectives, any form of delay, reduction, or even restructuring of the Jupuary-related distribution path would be interpreted as a weakening or even departure from previous commitments. Even if the officials emphasize it is for the long-term health of the token, this practice of 'post-adjustment terms' inevitably amplifies participants' sensitivity to the stability of rules.
● Collision of support and skepticism: In public discussions, some insist that 'delaying the Jupuary plan' is approaching default, worrying that the governance layer can rewrite the rules at any time; while others emphasize that dynamic adjustment itself is a rational mechanism that DAOs should have when facing changes in market environment and token economic pressures. Around the same proposal, one side calls for rigid fulfillment from a contractual perspective, while the other emphasizes flexible correction from a system sustainability angle. Emotions and logic overlap, making 'net zero emissions' seem like an economic model optimization as well as a test of the community's trust boundaries.
Introduction of Option 2: Team Sacrifice and Redrawing the Supply Curve
● Outline of core ideas: In the current governance proposal, the frequently mentioned Option 2 is described as one of the key paths to achieve 'net zero new emissions.' The general approach is to include pausing the issuance of team reserve tokens among multiple measures, not releasing additional new net supply to the market beyond current ecological incentives. This design of 'tightening the faucet from the source' seeks to redraw the supply curve for the coming years or even longer without immediately shaking the existing circulation.
● The intuitive implication of 'indefinite suspension': The proposal text contains phrases like "indefinitely suspend team reserve issuance", which technically do not specify quantities, but have a significant impact in market perception. For the token supply curve, this equates to changing the expected parts of team tokens to be unlocked from 'certain to enter circulation in the future' to 'uncertain in time and scale, even possibly never releasing.' This way, the inflation path is clearly lowered, while the potential tokens on the team's books are actively 'frozen,' strengthening the symbolic meaning of 'sharing burdens with the community.'
● Governance risks under information asymmetry: It is important to emphasize that key information, including the voting period (February 17-21) and details of Option 2, currently mainly comes from a single source disclosure, which has not undergone multiple cross-verification. For ordinary token holders, this information asymmetry means that when voting, they are actually making a choice based on a text that may not be fully transparent. If subsequent disclosures include revisions or supplements, discrepancies may emerge between voting results and initial understanding, the DAO completes the vote in form, but may indeed be based on incomplete information, which is one of the hardest and riskiest aspects to quantify in governance design.
DAO Voting Reshaping the Power of Token Supply and Demand
● Governance directly embedded in issuance mechanism: The JUP case shows that DAO governance is no longer merely a 'opinions collector,' but is a key switch directly embedded in token issuance rhythm, inflation levels, and market expectations. A single proposal can change core parameters such as team reserve release, ecological incentive rhythm, and community distribution windows, transitioning the token from 'fixed white paper path' to 'dynamically adjustable governance curve.' This high degree of plasticity is both the allure of decentralized governance and the reason long-term holders remain vigilant.
● The dual effect of the net zero narrative: From a secondary market perspective, the slogan 'net zero new emissions' naturally has the potential to boost confidence—suppressing inflation, weakening sell pressure expectations, and reinforcing the long-term scarcity narrative. At the same time, it also creates substantial constraints on team incentive pools and future token elasticity: once supply is tightened through excessive commitments, if tokens need to be released for ecological expansion, strategic investment, or talent incentives, it easily conflicts with the current narrative. In the short term, net zero is a 'stopping the bleeding' measure, but in the long term, it may become a 'tight-fitting garment.' How to find the balance between the two is a consequence that such proposals must face.
● Decision dilemma of ordinary token holders: Under the complex token mechanisms and information gaps, most ordinary token holders often find it difficult to accurately assess the long-term impact of various proposals. They struggle to fully understand the technical details about reserves, vesting, and unlocking curves, and also find it difficult to obtain a comprehensive view of the team's real financial and operational pressures, ultimately swinging between 'trusting mainstream opinions' and 'emotional voting.' When governance votes necessitate binary choices about highly complex economic models, the gap between democratic participation and professional judgment is amplified, which is a common problem across the entire DAO field beyond JUP.
Reordering Interests under Mercurial Adaptation
● Complex mechanisms affecting historical participants: The net zero emissions proposal does not merely target team reserves, but also involves a series of historical legacies and complex mechanisms such as the Mercurial allocation plan. For users who have previously participated in related projects or transitioned arrangements, these terms directly affect whether, when, and how they will obtain JUP or related benefits in the future. If the proposal is passed, it amounts to a 'revaluation of expectations' for participants from different historical stages at the current point in time.
● Pausing and adjusting to reorder benefits: If relevant allocations are paused, delayed, or rewritten, then the order of benefits among the team, early participants, and ordinary community members will be shuffled. Compared to those who have already obtained freely circulating tokens, those still in the vesting cycle and yet to unlock may face reality adjustments that move their benefits backward or even reduce them; while ordinary holders who remain in the market and actively participate in current governance may enjoy a certain relative advantage under the narrative of net zero slowing sell pressure. This difference of 'who is truly present at the voting time' gives technical adjustments a naturally redistributive color.
● Technical terms hidden within the net zero packaging: At the level of public dissemination, 'net zero emissions' is a highly communicable and easy-to-understand slogan, but behind it often lies a complete and high-threshold set of technical terms regarding allocations, transitions, repurchases, and reserve handling. For holders lacking the patience or ability to dissect documents line by line, real changes in benefits can easily be buried beneath the narrative packaging: they remember 'inflation is controlled' and 'team sacrifices,' but may overlook the fact that some allocation paths are rewritten and certain historical commitments are weakened. This is why, in governance proposals involving allocations and reserves, 'transparency' and 'readability' themselves become a kind of distribution of power.
Contrasts Under Regulatory Shadow: Market Self-Rescue and State Intervention
● Context of the Polish bill's rejection: Nearly concurrent with internal supply adjustments at Jupiter, a Polish bill related to cryptocurrency was rejected in the legislative process, prompting further discussion within the industry on regulatory pathways. Although the specific provisions and technical details of the bill are not elaborated here, its rejection itself constitutes a strong contrast: on one side, the top-down reshaping of industry rules by the state; on the other, project parties and communities like Jupiter engaging in self-regulation through proposals and voting on-chain.
● Two fates of top-down and bottom-up: In the national legislative pathway, the fate of tokens is often determined by a few decision-makers in parliaments or regulatory agencies, while project parties and holders are more passive receivers of rules; in contrast, under the DAO voting model, supply curves, inflation paths, and team incentive arrangements can be substantively changed through community votes. The net zero proposal of JUP is essentially a 'bottom-up vote on the fate of the token,' forming a stark contrast with the 'top-down industry framework' represented by the Polish bill, with these two forces intertwining to create the dual governance reality in today's cryptocurrency world.
● Can internal adjustments hedge against external shocks: In an environment of ongoing regulatory uncertainty, the extent to which attempts like Jupiter to self-rescue through internal supply adjustments can hedge systemic risks remains an unanswered question. Even if the DAO, through the net zero proposal, successfully eases its own inflation expectations, it cannot fully offset pressures brought by external factors such as macro regulatory shifts and tightened market liquidity. 'Net zero' is more about fine-tuning within controllable variables, while the true determinants of the token’s long-term fate may still be the combination of the project's internal governance quality and external regulatory conditions.
Commitments, Inflation, and Governance: Long-Term Questions for JUP
The debates surrounding Jupiter's net zero emissions proposal have clearly revealed its double-edged attributes: on one hand, by reducing net new supply, pausing part of the reserves and allocation paths, there is indeed an opportunity to alleviate JUP's inflation expectations and repair the secondary market's imagination of token scarcity; on the other hand, adjustments to the rhythm of previous commitments like Jupuary inevitably tear at the trust of part of the community on an emotional level, raising doubts about whether rules will be rewritten again in the future. Inflation management and promise fulfillment have, for the first time, been placed so directly on the balance in this governance.
The key dimensions to watch next will include: first, the final voting result itself—whether the net zero solution can gain sufficient support, or reach consensus on a compromise version; second, the transparency of communication between the team and the community—whether clearer, more understandable explanations will be provided on key figures, allocation paths, and timelines; third, whether the supply route will be adjusted again in the future, or whether a relatively stable long-term framework will be established through a one-time major overhaul. Each follow-up action will retroactively adjust the market's interpretation of this proposal.
A more cautious judgment is that the long-term performance of JUP ultimately will not be determined solely by this 'net zero emissions' vote, but will depend on whether the DAO can find a new balance between flexible adjustment and commitment adherence. If the community can build a transparent, predictable governance mechanism that allows for moderate corrections while respecting historical expectations, then the net zero proposal may be remembered as a difficult but necessary upgrade to the economic model; conversely, it might become a case of a 'self-rescue narrative' achieving short-term effects but leaving trust fractures over a longer period. Jupiter and JUP are walking this fine line.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
