My timeline is currently flooded with a three-line screenshot of Siong's tweet: > "Regarding Jupuary, we are waiting for the last ASR to finish claiming first. Then we will do it." The sentence is short. But the market reaction is long and harsh. "Another notification?", "Jupuary after all the ASRs?", "They don't even treat users like human beings." But let's pause for a moment. Are you really upset because of the "ASR ends, then Jupuary" sequence? Or because the airdrop and price movement you were hoping for collapsed? This article isn't intended to defend Siong or cover up Jupiter. It's simply to examine our perspective on this matter. I. Role and Words: Don't Ask a Genius Developer to Be a TED Talk Let's start with the facts. - ASR (Active Staking Rewards) is a quarterly reward paid to those who stake JUP (and participate in governance). - Jupuary is an airdrop season for a broader user base, and the 2026 airdrop has already faced controversy due to reduced supply and changed conditions. - In this context, Siong stated in just three lines, "Jupuary will be held after the final ASR claim." If you were to ask me if this is appropriate for someone in a leadership position to say, I would say "no." Because... 1. The context is omitted. - The technical and operational reasons for why Jupuary can only be held after the ASR is over are not explained at all. - To a community already suspicious, it can only be interpreted as, "The priority is not us (users), but you (the team)." 2. The language is light for the position. - The words a co-founder uses in front of hundreds of thousands of people aren't just personal account scribbles; they can be signals that influence market structures. - A leader's words aren't just "texts I'm solely responsible for," but system calls that touch the assets and emotions of countless people. So, let's delve a little deeper. 'Why does Siong speak this way?' My guess is simple. Siong is a Meow type of person. He's incredibly skilled at development and possesses exceptional technical leadership skills. However, his market psychology and public communication skills are entirely different stats. Meow was like that in the past. He used to be a frequent presence on social media and YouTube, but at some point, he drastically reduced his exposure. This was after he realized that his words and actions don't always have a positive impact. Since then, he's been much more cautious in his approach. Siong is also in that category. His development stat is 99, and his communication stat is 40. The problem is that the market demands a "superhuman who is both 99 in development and 99 in speaking." That kind of leader exists in legendary characters in games, but not in reality. Leadership isn't about being "good at everything," but rather about creating a "structure that allows everyone to do what they do best." - People like Siong focus on code and architecture, - and strong communicators like Kash engage with the market from the front lines. This setup actually raises expectations for the entire organization. So, I'd like to summarize it this way: > "Siong's tweet was clearly a miscommunication, but to dismiss Jupiter as a whole, beyond his technical achievements, is to confuse roles with stats." Aren't you caught up in that confusion right now? II. The Mirror of Short-Termism: Are You an Investor or an Event Hunter? You call Jupiter's several-month delay "no big deal." I'm in the same boat. Because, if you're going to hold onto it for years, whether you receive it now or three months from now is practically irrelevant. But looking at the timeline, most of the people shouting the loudest right now are - those who jumped in just before the airdrop date, - those who expected quick profits from this event. The important thing here isn't moral judgment. Whether short-term or long-term, each person's strategy is their own. The problem is the attitude of blaming others while forgetting their own strategy. So, I'd like to ask: - "If your investment logic is overturned just because the Jupuary is delayed by a few months, wasn't your logic based on three weeks, not three years, in the first place?" - "What you really wanted was the project's growth, or the pumping chart immediately after the airdrop?" If you want to answer, "No, I'm a true long-term investor," then your current anger stems from one of two reasons: 1. You don't want to admit that your true intentions were short-term, or 2. You claim to be a long-term investor, but your actual actions were motivated by a short-term price action. Neither is bad. However, there's no need to be confused. Let's look at the ASR structure. - It's a quarterly reward based on staking (governance participation), - If you miss the claim period, your stake reverts to the DAO treasury. In other words, the system itself is designed to reward "long-term alignment + active participation." For those who understand this structure, a slight discrepancy between the claim timing and the Jupuary point isn't enough to shake the investment rationale. So, let's summarize it this way: > "The people most affected by this current chaos are those who have no choice but to leverage short-term events. > While that sentiment is understandable, it's dangerous to use it as a criterion for determining the overall direction of a project." III. Not judging a project based on a single tweet We don't evaluate people that way in everyday life. - Just because a normally conscientious friend is late for a meeting, we don't label them as "a person who never keeps promises." - Just because a boss, who was usually a jerk, was a good boss for a day, we don't reassess them as "actually an angel." What we're looking at isn't a single event, but a cumulative pattern. In soccer terms, it's the average performance over several seasons, rather than the mistakes made in a single game. Jupiter is no different. - Good scores: Results from infrastructure deployment, routing and liquidity aggregation, governance experiments, and the launch of Jupuary Season 1. - Bad scores: Jupuary volume reductions and condition changes, ASR claim UX and security controversies, and recent communication methods. The average of all these scores represents the current status of the Jupiter project. Siong's latest tweet is clearly a negative score. That's undeniable. However... - If this one tweet, - reduces all previous positive scores and potential for future improvement to zero, then it's not because the project is doing this; it means they've already formed a conclusion and are only looking for evidence. In psychology, this is called confirmation bias. Because they're already disappointed with Jupiter, any comment they make is interpreted with a "See, that's the same." So, I'd like to say this: > "It's true that Siong, as the founder of Jupiter, must be careful with his words and actions. (Siong's social media activity deserves serious consideration.) > However, anyone who generalizes his single three-line tweet as the essence of Jupiter as a whole, > is likely viewing it this way not because Jupiter is like that, but because their own emotions are already distorted." Ultimately, we judge based on data accumulated over a long period of time. This incident is just one example of that data. IV. Three Questions to Ask Yourself in Times Like These (Protocol) Finally, I leave you with a simple self-assessment protocol that can be used whenever the community is shaken, like this one. 1. "What timeline am I on?" - If a three-month delay undermines your investment logic → You're effectively a short-term player. - If you're looking at a three-year horizon → This incident is a "need for improvement + subject to monitoring," not an immediate trigger for departure. 2. "Do I view people/projects as events or patterns?" - Is my timeline currently focused solely on Siong's three lines? - Or am I viewing Jupiter's past activities and this mistake on the same timeline? 3. "Does my anger stem from facts or losses?" - Facts: Objective information such as the ASR structure, Jupiter schedule/volume changes, and voting suspensions. - Losses: My average price, my position, my leverage. Honestly, write down which of the two influences your interpretation more. In most cases, you already know the answer. It's just difficult to admit it. V. Conclusion Siong's sentence is clearly a mistake. But that mistake doesn't have to replace all your judgment. - Leaders' language needs to be more weighty, - the Jupiter team needs to be much more transparent about the ASR-Jupuary structure and priorities, - and at the same time, each of us needs to be honest with ourselves about our own positions and timelines. Ultimately, the question boils down to one thing: > "Are you judging Jupiter by looking at Siong's three lines, > or are you interpreting Siong's three lines by looking at the multi-year story of Jupiter?" The answer you give will reveal what kind of investor (or speculator) you are.