new lesson: Tokenomics

[mu1titudes]

Written by Mikus

[tpompon]

📚 Lesson review — tokenomics.mdx

Automated review by the Academy lesson agents. Read-only — nothing was changed. Reviewed commit ad20a79.

Summary: 🔴 5 blockers · 🟡 16 suggestions across 4 checks

🖼️ Integrity (illustrations · video · links · frontmatter · glossary)

Verdict: 0 blockers, 6 suggestions

Sev	Where	Finding	Suggested fix
🟡	line 55	Burn used in prose, not wrapped in <Term> (glossary entry exists)	Wrap as <Term id="burn">Burn</Term>
🟡	line 36	Market Capitalization / market cap not wrapped in <Term> (glossary entry exists)	Wrap first use as <Term id="market-cap">Market Capitalization</Term>
🟡	line 18	blockchain used repeatedly, never wrapped in <Term> (glossary entry exists)	Wrap first occurrence as <Term id="blockchain">blockchain</Term>
🟡	line 66	stablecoins not wrapped in <Term> (glossary entry exists)	Wrap as <Term id="stablecoin">stablecoins</Term>
🟡	line 51	minting implied ("new tokens can be created") but never surfaced with <Term> (glossary entry exists)	Add <Term id="minting">minting</Term> where token creation is described
🟡	line 62	Governance not wrapped in <Term> (glossary entry exists)	Wrap first standalone use as <Term id="governance">Governance</Term>

Links checked: /lessons/safety-rugs, /lessons/jupiter-governance (×2) all resolve. Frontmatter valid; no images or video to probe.

🔎 Accuracy vs docs.jup.ag

Verdict: 1 blocker, 1 to verify

Docs consulted:

• https://docs.jup.ag/user-docs/more/jup-token/tokenomics.md
• https://docs.jup.ag/user-docs/more/jup-token/index.md
• https://docs.jup.ag/user-docs/more/dao/index.md
• https://docs.jup.ag/user-docs/earn/jupusd/index.md

Sev	Lesson says (line)	Docs/source say	Action
🔴	"the current total supply is over 20 million tokens" (Bitcoin, l.30)	As of early 2026 Bitcoin's circulating supply is ~19.99 million BTC — just under 20 million (CoinDesk, Jan 2026: "Bitcoin Supply Approaching 20 Million")	Change to "approaching 20 million tokens" / "just under 20 million tokens"
🟡	"MET, CLOUD" listed as governance tokens alongside JUP (l.62)	Jupiter docs confirm JUP as the sole Jupiter governance token; MET and CLOUD are not Jupiter products and can't be verified against Jupiter docs	Confirm MET/CLOUD governance status with the team, or replace with verifiable examples

Confirmed accurate: JupUSD/USDC as USD-pegged stablecoins; JUP as a governance token with immutable supply.

✍️ Quality (language · coherence)

Verdict: 4 blockers, 9 suggestions

Sev	Where	Finding	Suggested fix
🔴	line 27	"on-chain" inconsistent with line 62 ("onchain") and corpus convention	Change to "onchain"
🔴	line 47	"price manipulations" — uncountable here; plural is wrong	Change to "price manipulation"
🔴	line 55	"counter measure" — should be one word	Change to "countermeasure"
🔴	line 55	"Burn destroys the tokens…" — missing article; reads as a command	Change to "Burning destroys tokens…"
🟡	line 20	"Tokenomics is a wide definition" — mislabels the concept	Change to "Tokenomics is a broad concept…"
🟡	lines 20, 70	"based on which users can make investing decisions" — awkward, repeated	Rephrase to "…to inform their investment decisions"
🟡	line 18	"better transparency due to irreversibility" conflates two separate properties	Split: transparency comes from the public ledger; irreversibility is separate
🟡	line 70	"retail participants of the market" — awkward; lesson trails off with no takeaway	Use "retail market participants" and add a closing takeaway
🟡	line 62	"JUP, MET, CLOUD" — MET/CLOUD undefined acronyms for a Fundamentals reader	Remove or briefly identify each (e.g. "JUP — Jupiter's governance token")
🟡	lines 28, 63	"real world assets" — missing hyphen on compound modifier	Change to "real-world assets"
🟡	line 66	"Governance tokens often represent ownership; that's why their supply is immutable" — causal link asserted without support	Soften to "…are often designed with a fixed supply to preserve each holder's proportional stake."
🟡	whole file	Zero <Term> components — outlier vs sibling Fundamentals lessons	Wrap at minimum "DeFi" and "JUP"
🟡	whole file	No images — all sibling Fundamentals lessons have at least one	Add an illustration (e.g. supply/distribution chart) via the CDN pattern

🧠 Quiz (proposed)

Verdict: proposed 4-question quiz — for the app repo, not this content repo.

• Q1 — covers "Token Supply" (Max vs Total vs Circulating)
• Q2 — covers "Market Value" (Market Cap calculation)
• Q3 — covers "Token Distribution" (concentration risk)
• Q4 — covers "Token Utility / Emissions"

Proposed quiz JSON

{
  "questions": [
    {
      "question": "Which supply metric represents the maximum number of tokens that can ever exist according to a protocol's rules?",
      "options": [
        "Circulating Supply",
        "Total Supply",
        "Max Supply",
        "Fully Diluted Valuation"
      ],
      "correctAnswer": 2,
      "explanation": "Max Supply is the hard ceiling set by the protocol — no new tokens can ever be created beyond this number, unlike Total Supply which changes as tokens are burned."
    },
    {
      "question": "How is Market Capitalization (MC) calculated?",
      "options": [
        "Max supply multiplied by current token price",
        "Circulating supply multiplied by current token price",
        "Total supply multiplied by average historical price",
        "Circulating supply divided by current token price"
      ],
      "correctAnswer": 1,
      "explanation": "Market Cap uses circulating supply — the tokens actively in the market — multiplied by current price, distinguishing it from FDV which uses max supply."
    },
    {
      "question": "Why is understanding token distribution important when evaluating a project?",
      "options": [
        "It determines the gas fees required to transact with the token",
        "It reveals whether the token has a mint authority enabled",
        "A concentration of tokens in few hands can enable price manipulation",
        "It shows whether the token is a stablecoin or a governance token"
      ],
      "correctAnswer": 2,
      "explanation": "If the majority of tokens are locked or controlled by a minority of holders, those parties can manipulate the price, making distribution a key legitimacy signal."
    },
    {
      "question": "According to the lesson, why are emissions considered healthy for stablecoins but potentially harmful for governance tokens?",
      "options": [
        "Stablecoins are always backed by gold, while governance tokens are backed by nothing",
        "Governance tokens require emissions to reward voters, while stablecoins have a fixed supply",
        "Stablecoin emissions are backed by real-world assets, while governance token emissions would dilute shareholder ownership",
        "Emissions only apply to stablecoins because governance tokens use a burn mechanism instead"
      ],
      "correctAnswer": 2,
      "explanation": "Stablecoin emissions are healthy because each new token is backed by a real-world asset, whereas governance tokens represent ownership shares that would be diluted by any new supply."
    }
  ]
}

App maintainer: save to src/data/quizes/tokenomics.quiz.json in academy.jup.ag and run pnpm sync-quizzes.

---

🤖 Ready-to-use prompt for Claude Code

Copy this into Claude Code on the PR branch to apply the fixes:

Apply the Jupiter Academy lesson review for lessons/tokenomics.mdx.

Blockers (must fix):
1. Line 30: Change "the current total supply is over 20 million tokens" to "approaching 20 million tokens" (or "just under 20 million tokens") — as of early 2026 ~19.99M BTC had been mined, still under 20M. Source: CoinDesk, Jan 2026.
2. Line 27: Change "on-chain" to "onchain" to match corpus house style.
3. Line 47: Change "price manipulations" to "price manipulation".
4. Line 55: Change "counter measure" to "countermeasure".
5. Line 55: Change "Burn destroys the tokens and removes them from circulation." to "Burning destroys tokens and removes them from circulation."

Suggestions (apply if you agree):
1. Line 62: MET and CLOUD are listed as governance tokens but aren't verifiable against Jupiter docs (only JUP is confirmed) and are undefined acronyms for a Fundamentals reader. Confirm with the team or replace with verifiable examples / identify each inline (e.g. "JUP — Jupiter's governance token").
2. Wrap key glossary terms in <Term>: <Term id="burn">Burn</Term> (l.55), <Term id="market-cap">Market Capitalization</Term> (l.36), <Term id="blockchain">blockchain</Term> (l.18), <Term id="stablecoin">stablecoins</Term> (l.66), <Term id="minting">minting</Term> (l.51), <Term id="governance">Governance</Term> (l.62), plus DeFi and JUP.
3. Line 20: Change "Tokenomics is a wide definition that comprises many factors." to "Tokenomics is a broad concept that encompasses many factors."
4. Lines 20 and 70: Replace "make investing decisions" with "inform their investment decisions".
5. Line 18: Split the conflated claim — transparency comes from the public ledger, not from irreversibility: "offer greater transparency: all supply changes are publicly visible on the blockchain and irreversible by design".
6. Lines 28 and 63: Change "real world assets" to "real-world assets".
7. Line 66: Replace "that's why their supply is immutable, so that the shareholder value never gets diluted" with "and are often designed with a fixed supply to preserve each holder's proportional stake".
8. Line 70: Add a closing takeaway, e.g. "When assessing a new token, start by checking its supply structure, distribution breakdown, and whether mint authority has been disabled."
9. Add at least one illustration (e.g. a supply/distribution chart) via the static.academy.jup.ag/images/illustrations/ CDN pattern, matching sibling Fundamentals lessons.

Then commit and push to this PR branch. Do not invent facts — cite docs.jup.ag where the review did. Keep the Academy tone (educational, no financial advice).

(Quiz proposal in the comment above is for the app repo — not this content repo.)

_{Re-run with /review-lesson-pr 26 after pushing — this comment updates in place.}

[mu1titudes]

Agentic feedback addressed. No further comments.