Jupiter’s budget proposal offers $85k salaries plus 4.5m JUP tokens to four individuals, sparking community outrage.The total budget exceeds $7 million, with tokens vesting over just two years.Critics argue the CWG members lack experience and have not demonstrated value to JUP holders, viewing the proposal as self-enrichment.
Well, here we are, staring down one of those moments in the crypto universe where the gloves come off and everyone has something to say. Jupiter, a name that’s been making rounds for a multitude of reasons, is under the spotlight yet again. This time, it’s not for launching a new feature or hitting a milestone. Nope. It’s about their latest budget proposal, and let’s just say, it’s caused more than a little uproar.
A Proposal That Raises Eyebrows
So, what’s got everyone’s keyboards clacking and social media buzzing? Jupiter’s proposition to fund its first Working Group, known as the CWG, has certainly turned heads—and not in the good way. We’re talking about a budget that’s north of $7 million, earmarked for a quartet of folks. These individuals are poised to bag around $85,000 each in salaries, plus a hefty side of tokens—4.5 million JUP, to be exact, translating to a cool $6.75 million with today’s rates.
The kicker? These tokens come with a mere two-year vesting period.
Just let that sink in.
We’ve got a group that’s about to potentially sit on a multimillion-dollar pile for what? Hosting AMAs, brainstorming ideas, and evaluating applicants for the LFG. No prior wins to show for, no tangible value addition to JUP holders in sight. It screams, “How can we fill our pockets?” and frankly, it’s got the community in a tizzy.
Community’s Reaction: A Spectrum of Discontent
The feedback loop from the crypto sphere has been, for lack of a better word, explosive. Some folks are flat-out rejecting the proposal, calling it an “egregious attempted robbery” under the guise of salaries. It’s clear that many view this proposal as a step too far, especially for a group without a track record of building financial primitives or contributing substantial value back to the DAO.
On forums, social media, and Jupiter’s own platforms, the conversation has ranged from outright dismissal to calls for more reasonable salary baselines and token allocations with longer vesting periods. It seems like the proposal has not only missed the mark but also ignited concerns about Jupiter becoming another cautionary tale of mismanagement and lack of decentralization.
One prominent voice in the mix highlighted the issue with crystal clarity, emphasizing the lack of “skin in the game” and questioning the CWG’s route to enriching themselves at the expense of the broader JUP ecosystem. Meanwhile, others are hinting at the necessity of learning from past mistakes in the crypto world, advocating for keeping Jupiter decentralized and wary of becoming “apecoin 2.0.”
Yet, amidst the barrage of criticism, some individuals within the CWG defended their stance, arguing that their commitment and past contributions to the platform equate to “skin in the game.” They stress the importance of their reputations and career aspirations tied to the success and integrity of Jupiter, hinting at a broader vision that perhaps isn’t fully understood or appreciated by the wider community.
Despite these defenses, the overarching sentiment leans heavily towards opposition. The call for more accountability, clearer milestones, and conditions attached to the funding is loud and clear. The community’s verdict? A resounding thumbs down. The chorus of “no” votes echoes the growing concern over the direction Jupiter is headed with this kind of financial decision-making.
The CWG’s budget proposal, while specific in numbers, seems to have missed the mark in securing trust and buy-in from the very community it aims to serve. In a space as dynamic and volatile as crypto, where the balance of power and trust is delicate, such missteps can have lasting impacts.
As the dust settles on this contentious proposal, the lessons learned and the adjustments made (or not made) will undoubtedly shape the future of Jupiter and its place in the crypto ecosystem.
$JUP #JUP #JUPITER

Prices of many cryptocurrencies have been hitting weekly highs recently, and the likes of dogwifhat (WIF), Jupiter (JUP), Litecoin (LTC), and Render (RNDR) have not been left out.
In the last seven days, WIF’s price has increased by an incredible 107%. JUP, like WIF, jumped by 26.07%, and AI-themed RNDR registered a 3.68% increase. Lastly, LTC rose by 23.91%.
WIF vs. JUP
At press time, WIF changed hands at $4.59. JUP, on the other hand, was $1.53. From the 4-hour comparative chart, there seems to be a strong correlation between WIF’s price action and JUP’s.
For instance, when WIF tumbled between March 21 and 23, JUP also did the same. It was a similar situation on March 30 as both tokens rallied to new highs.
Going forward, it looks like the connection might not remain the same. This was because of the indication shown by the Supertrend. Despite the price jumps JUP and WIF have had, the Supertrend did not identify a sell signal that could push back the upswing.

Hence, it is likely that the prices might climb further. However, the Relative Strength Index (RSI) hit the overbought region, suggesting that a retracement could be on the cards. If WIF or JUP retraces, there is a chance that a harder pump might appear once buying pressure returns.
LTC vs. RNDR
The 4-hour analysis of LTC/USD against RNDR did not produce a similar result to the one mentioned above. Unlike WIF and JUP, the price action of LTC differed from RNDR.
For example, RNDR struggled to resist a decline on March 29. But it was around the same period that spotted support that triggered an engulfing candle that cleared the overhead resistance and hit $103.96.
A look at the Exponential Moving Average (EMA) displayed a golden cross on the LTC/USD chart. At press time, the 20 EMA (blue) had crossed over the 50 EMA (yellow), suggesting a bullish trend for the coin.

However, traders need to watch out. If Litecoin’s price drops below the 20 EMA, the bullish bias might be invalidated. For Render, it does not seem like the value would produce a significant jump in the short term as it might trade sideways between $10.83 and $11.12.
$LTC $WIF $RNDR #JUPITER