JIP-17: Activate a Cryptoeconomics subDAO

JIP - Official
4

A 2nd post here. It’s not directly related to the topic of subDao but since this is the latest forum post related to tokenomics, i thought about highlighting further feedback here.

I have read the token transparency report by Blockworks on Jito and i highly applaud team :saluting_face: for their high score. I however note that the report is scoring based on transparency rather than the quality of the tokenomics. Link: https://impressive-horses-5641a8b530.media.strapiapp.com/Jito_Token_Transparency_Framework_Q2_2025_0ed61abad5.pdf

  1. Basically, the report have confirmed that Jito does indeed have equity, in addition to token. If equity holders demand return on equity, will this not surely divert part of revenue flows meant for token holders away from them? Because equity holders likely hold very big JTO position as well at much lower valuation compared to JTO holders who bought in the open market, equity holders gets to eat the cake and still keep it.

  2. Qns on transparency: Was part of the 5% mev tips (now 3%) allocated to labs, meant to return to equity holders? Even if it’s no up to this point, will this be in future plan to do so?

  3. Jito labs is allocated 245,000,000 JTO (even more than jito dao which controls 243,000,000 JTO) and get 3% of mev tips currently. Jito foundation also paid jito labs $2.6m. Prior to tiprouter, jito’s cumulative 5% mev tips received should be at least $35m especially when mev volume was at ATH in Jan 25? And with a lean team of not more than 20 employees, not sure why $2.6m is still needed to pay labs from foundation? Could this $2.6m fees not be used to return some value back to JTO holders especially when jito was doing so well then?
    Let me know if i got any figures wrong.

  4. If it make sense, why can’t the foundation and labs combine as 1 entity? On the outside, they seems like one and the same team with 100% aligned objectives and interest. Jito foundation also have 250,000,000 JTO allocated to them which they can use at their own discretion. Could they not share resources as a combined entity? @samandrewNIV also posted similar views here: JTO Utility And Tokenomics - #13 by samandrewNIV

  5. If it make sense, can all 6% of mev tips goes to DAO instead? If assuming tips is shared as “dividends” based on JTO staked, revenue flowing to jito labs/foundation via this approach for covering some expenses/salary would be non trivial given the combined JTO that labs and foundation holds.

I think this would be better optics for tokenomics too. Data analytics site like defillama define “revenue” as “Fee accured to the jito DAO (Withdrawal Fees, Interceptor Fees, Tip Router Fees)” and “Holders Revenue” as “Fee paid to token holders”
https://defillama.com/protocol/jito?revenue=true

With higher fees to dao as a result, this would surely increase fundamental valuation metrics of JTO and a win win for all. Imo, the alignment of interests still have room to improve.

Hope this can be discussed publicly by subDao/Jito team with the wider community soon.

3 Likes