#流动性激励与收益 Seeing Jupiter shift from a $70 million buyback to a staking reward mechanism, I thought of a very important question: what is the true way to incentivize long-term holders?

Pure buybacks and burns are like patching a leaking boat—if no one wants to sit on the boat, no matter how much you patch, it’s useless. Jupiter’s dilemma is quite typical—the project spends so much on buybacks, yet the price doesn’t improve. The fundamental reason is that holders lack sufficient yield incentives.

Switching to a staking reward approach is more interesting. Providing long-term holders with tangible return expectations, turning time into an asset, is the only way to establish a truly stable holder base. Based on the community discussion mentioning around 25% APY, this kind of incentive is indeed far more attractive than just technical speculation.

But I want to remind everyone that no matter how the incentive mechanism is designed, the most important thing is to ask yourself a few questions: How long can this mechanism last? If the yield comes from protocol profits, is the protocol’s sustainability guaranteed? Chasing high APY greedily often marks the beginning of risk.

A prudent approach should start with understanding the project’s real cash flow before deciding on the staking ratio. No matter how attractive the incentives are, you must leave enough room for risk management—this is the secret to long-term survival.