If JAM does have a new token, my opinion about it depends entirely on the details. In the meantime, since we have no details and in fact since we have no idea whether or not JAM will have a token, the bottom line is that Polkadot Treasury should absolutely not fund anything JAM-related.
How about we launch a JAM token, airdropped only to those brave souls actually implementing JAM - generously funded by the Polkadot treasury, of course.
Boom. Slogan crisis: obliterated.
Polkadot gets to fully embrace the catchphrase:
“DOT is dead.”
And JAM?
“Unburdened by what has been.”
2 Likes
I’ve been part of the Polkadot community for years now, and I’ve seen it go through plenty of ups and downs (and let’s be honest—more downs than ups lately).
So yeah, I was pretty irritated watching Gavin speak on the recent OpenDev Fellowship call. It felt less like “there definitely won’t be a new token” and more like “I have no idea how to pitch it yet.”
Like most people, I think introducing a new JAM token almost inevitably means DOT loses value and gets sidelined. The worst part is that from the beginning, JAM was presented as an evolution of Polkadot—not a replacement. This recent shift feels pretty dismissive of all the time, energy, and faith the community has put in over the years.
Now, I’m not just against a new token—I also don’t think a rebrand to JAM makes any sense. A few reasons why:
- We’ve done this before. Polkadot’s had multiple rebrands and narrative shifts. None of them really landed. So why would this time be different? Best case, we get a brief pump before things drop again. But we’ll be stuck with all the downsides listed below:
- The cost of rebranding is massive. It’s not just a new name. We’re talking wallet integrations, CEX listings, invalidating ETF applications—it’s a mess. And I don’t think the people pushing for a rebrand are really grasping the scale of that.
- It’s going to confuse users. Plain and simple.
- Regulatory implications are unclear. There’s been a ton of work (and money) poured into making DOT regulatory-compliant. Would any of that carry over to JAM? Who knows. We might be throwing all of that away.
- JAM isn’t better branding. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think JAM is stronger or more attractive than DOT. I haven’t seen anyone convincingly argue it is.
So to throw all of this away for the hope that “maybe people will ape into a shiny new token”? That feels reckless, honestly.
10 Likes
I think rebranding the DOT token as JAM makes sense in the context of differentiating the new paradigm from the old parachain paradigm. It may need to be done, but in any case it should be done in a way that is fair to DOT holders, in particular long term holders, and those that directly participate in its consensus and governance mechanisms.
If an overhaul of tokenomics is required, what would be perceived as “fair” is probably subjective, but I can only hope that those who would decide understand that the community members already invested in this project are assuming that they have invested in JAM as much as Polkadot, and that from our perspective there is no difference.
Heya everyone, Rebecca PM in Parity’s Product Eng dept here (though thoughts are my own). 
I want to take the opportunity to highlight that the launch of smart contracts on Polkadot Hub is the big opportunity to shift the “Polkadot = parachains” narrative in readiness for the JAM upgrade and also highlight the first implementation of PVM with PolkaVM executing smart contracts on Polkadot Hub.
- Further - the launch of smart contracts (being able to pay fees) and the Polkadot App (being able to pay for lots of things IRL) will greatly enhance DOT’s utility and attractiveness.
I’d suggest that fracturing our narrative/s may be counterproductive in terms of gaining brand recognition, enhancing reputation, and, ultimately, widespread adoption.
-
We want a compelling and clear story for those outside of the Polkadot ecosystem “bubble”, the audience we need to reach. I’d suggest that this approach of splitting brands may risk both launches (smart contracts and JAM), and we’d be more strategic to join them up, “flywheel”, and gain traction instead.
-
Also - agreed with previous comments that “rebrands” often just look “desperate” / reactive, and we’ve (famously) put a lot of time, effort and money into the Polkadot brand over the last year or so. I’d suggest that totally repositioning after all that much-publicised expense and effort may not inspire confidence in our strategy in current and would-be users, developers and investors.
– I also note that, from a practical standpoint, logistically they’re challenging and rely on a lot of external partners - e.g. CEXs and DEXs. E.g. we still have endpoints that are “statemint” etc. because of the challenges with renaming.
7 Likes
Honestly, all talk about JAM tokens right now is just speculation. Best to watch and see how things actually develop.
Some key questions to keep in mind:
- Will there be a new JAM token or use DOT/KSM?
- How will validators be impacted?
- What incentives will JAM offer?
- How will governance work across Polkadot, Kusama, and JAM?
- What does this mean for current projects on Polkadot and Kusama?
Let’s stay patient and focus on the facts as they come.
–
Note: About the rebranding or takeover ideas, who would actually pay for that and why?
As a man in crypto I’d like to go on the record as saying I love having a pink labeled coin
6 Likes
This is especially heinous.
2 Likes
Just adding my thoughts to this clearly controversial topic.
-
DOT holders generally appear to not want a new JAM token parallel to their DOT tokens, except on a possible rebrand of the DOT token.
-
“What about KSM?” Some seem to argue KSM to become the JAM token? This implies that Kusama then becomes master to a Polkadot slave service? Chaotic. But I don’t think that is a responsible plan for Web3 resilience.
Presumably, Polkadot in it’s current iteration (or something highly analogous) will exist on JAM as a service. Most likely, Kusama will blaze the trail. Does that mean Kusama will exist in it’s own JAM network? Or would it be advantageous to bring Kusama and Polkadot together as sister services within one JAM network. The networks would then benefit from the selective coherency offered by JAM.
JAM will need some type of token for anti-spam metering. The logical choice is DOT to become the defacto JAM token. But where does that leave KSM?
We also see a community desire to relaunch Kusama as a new, relevant canary network. But why build on Kusama when JAM is easier and better?
Would it be possible to allow both DOT and KSM to act as native JAM tokens? But not to dilute the DOT pool with KSM, something should enable a clear separation between the two. Is it possible to have KSM specific services? Priority execution? Experimental features? Baked-in privacy and ZK (leaning on some of the ideas from the Make Kusama Chaotic Again topic)?
DOT would exist as the primary token for most use cases benefiting from resilient stability and cryptographic assurances. KSM may become the premium token for system-offered privacy and niche uses.
Of course, I say this all as just someone rambling about things who wouldn’t be tasked with putting these to practice. So no idea if this is even feasible. 
I really want to highlight this post here by GBACI, imo this is an excellent summary and a perfect framing of the issue.
1 Like
This path is similar to what I suggested but I like it more as it’s simpler, the important bit is that it gives JAM the chance to launch earlier to mainnet and mature, it lets CoreVM and other services be tested in the real world by the brave early adopters that will help refine the SDKs and for different audiences to find their niche. Once the dust is settled Polkadot will be ready to join.
1 Like
I think most importantly we should take care to not divert our ecosystem and not send dangerous signals outside (which a new token in the sense of an additional token does - even thinking about and discussing it does).
I still see JAM as a relay chain upgrade. Just with much greater significance than a normal update like the Plaza upgrade. A rebrand however could be a sensiblle thing to do, I even see it as an opportunity: Polkadot, unfortunately, has serious reputation issues.
Market research and studies aside, anyone ever going to any blockchain conferences and events outside our bubble, will painfully experience and realize this: People I talked to (over the past of last couple years) either don’t know Polkadot or have an extremely negative sentiment towards us. If they know about Polkadot, they only know about blown up parachains or our KOL marketing spends, or think Polkadot {is dead, was a very bad investment, has no dApps and users, is completely isolated from the rest of web3, is a scam or retarded}.
I’ve seen too much charts, studies and material comparing various aspects about different blockchains (ecosystems) and often times Polkadot is completely absent. The joke “you know it’s proper if DOT is missing” exists.
On twitter it doesn’t look good either. I see DOT discussed positively in our bubble. Rarely and if then negatively within the broader crypto twitter.
I am not happy about the state we are in but it’s a reality we should not close our eyes to. I firmly believe in our mission and values, our tech stack, our people and our ecosystem. However we must stay relevant. Avoid sunken cost fallacy: If we decide against rebranding, it should entirely be for reasons other than that we already invested into to the existing brand.
In the end Polkadot is a DAO and the earlier we discuss this and try to find some consensus about it the better. The worst thing I can imagine happens now: The rumor that there might be an additional JAM token spreads. Leaving DOT in the dust and shaking up anyone still trusting in the DOT token.
I hope to see a wish for change referenda clarifying the future / branding of the governing relay chain token (as in Polkadot now, JAM later) as soon as possible.
8 Likes
This new JAM token situation is draining what little confidence I had left in the Polkadot ecosystem.
I’ll wait to see how this month’s Coretime sale goes before deciding whether to sell all my DOT and move to BTC.
Big thanks to CoreTimeNegotiation for stepping up and pushing for higher prices, though the leadership managed to undermine that by pushing a referendum that handed free cores to Mythical and Xcavate.
Polkadot’s leadership, especially Gav, keeps proving they have no idea how to run a successful project. Instead of focusing on clear, value-driving initiatives like increasing DOT burn through higher Coretime prices or introducing new burn mechanisms, they continue to create unnecessary ambiguity and drama, like this JAM token mess.
Replacing DOT with JAM is an admission of failure, and no one is going to back a second project led by someone who already failed. A rebrand is not a solution, it’s a surrender. The people who associate Polkadot with parachains already know what JAM is, because it’s been pushed on them just as aggressively. Rebranding won’t change that.
And if the plan is to shift value from DOT holders—who funded JAM’s development and marketing—into a new asset, then this will be a stain on Gav’s reputation that won’t wash off. It will destroy trust not only in JAM, but in any future project he touches.
7 Likes
Agreed, especially when there are 1 million new tokens a month according to Coinbase! It will just be seen as yet another meme coin and be difficult to get connections made on its value prop!
1 Like
My thoughts
I, personally, am not planning to launch a new token based on the JAM protocol. I don’t consider it sensible for Parity and the Web3 Foundation to launch such a token though I’ll let those organisations’ leaderships speak for themselves. I am generally against taking actions which I do not think would ultimately bring a net gain for Polkadot.
I do often explore ideas which I think could provide long-term value to Polkadot. Occasionally, these involve new tokens, generally symbiotic with DOT.
The DOT token is the mainstay of the Polkadot product economy and I very much expect it to stay this way. The existence of JAM doesn’t change this.
Polkadot and JAM are synergistic. With JAM, Polkadot gets more, faster cores, metering, connectivity, storage and the ability to use a whole new execution model.
On Polkadot
Polkadot is, first and foremost, a product. It secures and connects blockchains. It is powered by a decentralised network of actors.
The Polkadot Paper published in 2017 defined the baseline product vision. It is no longer a paper promise; it is a battle-tested production network that sets the bar for data availability and compute capacity, resilience, and secure cross-chain interoperability.
As a state-of-the-art roll-up host, it already powers heavyweight workloads: Mythos runs mainstream gaming titles NFL Rivals and FIFA Rivals; Hydration keeps DeFi solvent through protocol-executed partial liquidations; Frequency anchors a censorship-resistant social graph already serving millions of users; Hyperbridge supplies trust-free bridging as a cryptographic coprocessor—plus many other teams too numerous to list here.
The forthcoming Polkadot Hub upgrade will introduce a native RISC-V smart-contract platform, lowering entry-barriers for builders and charting a path through the toughest rollup challenges—securing integrations with CEXs, custodians and bridges, and accessing native stablecoins and liquidity at scale.
All of these improvements are really all about making the Polkadot product better, in order to gain usage, create demand and build a successful economy.
On JAM
JAM is a Web3 protocol. (For those who don’t understand the distinction between a protocol and a network or token, a protocol is the common bit between Ethereum and Ethereum Classic, or Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. It’s the technical underpinnings, stripped of specific organisations, computers, community, history or token.) It is strictly and minimally specified and has no single reference implementation or single financial interest behind it which might compromise its neutrality. JAM is capable of being used in a multitude of situations and is not bound to a single interest group.
Expertise and IP on JAM is not walled into a company as has become the industry norm. I have lectured on the JAM protocol extensively around the world and it is possible to understand enough to make a full implementation of JAM from one main paper, its references and a handful of published technical conventions. There are almost 40 teams known to be building their own independent implementation of JAM. No teams implementing JAM are under any kind of legal or moral responsibility toward me, Parity or the Web3 Foundation. The JAM Implementers’ Prize incentivises teams with locked DOT to deliver high-quality implementations. Teams now have sufficient expertise that they not only regularly contribute back to the JAM specification but also make suggestions on how to improve it.
The JAM protocol has been under development for more than two years now. Its specification, the Graypaper, was written and maintained almost exclusively by me and was not in any way funded by the Polkadot treasury. It was intentionally written to be independent of both the existing Polkadot and Ethereum protocols, though it does have some technical and design elements in common with each of them.
Last year, the Polkadot stakeholders voted in favour of using the JAM protocol as part of a future technical upgrade path.
It is conceivable that other protocols and tokens may decide the same.
On the Web3 Foundation and Parity
The Web3 Foundation is in a very healthy state of finances. It has a clear, legally-binding, mission statement of supporting and nurturing Web3 protocols.
In pursuit of this mission, the Web3 Foundation presold DOT tokens in 2017 on the basis of them being useful within the scope of this product. Polkadot has been, and in my view should continue to be, Web3 Foundation’s primary target but need not be the only one. Under its clearly stated remit, the Web3 Foundation funds the JAM Prize and the procurement of the JAM Toaster hardware.
Parity is, and in my view should continue to be, directed to focus primarily on Polkadot product improvement together with optimised value capture.
On JAM networks and tokens
I hope that JAM and the PVM be not only milestones on Polkadot’s upgrade path, but also a standard, neutral Web3 protocol.
Nothing - not me, not you, not Parity and not the Web3 Foundation prevents any one (or more) of the JAM implementation teams launching their own JAM network along with its own token. Indeed, nothing stops any existing network launching their own JAM instance and transitioning to it.
In fact, that freedom is the point; it embodies the open-source permissionless ethos which brought us here. I believe that this presents an opportunity for the entire Web3 industry to make a significant technological leap and an excellent chance for Polkadot to expand its relevance, connectivity and mindshare across the space and beyond.
40 Likes
Any word/thoughts on Kusama and its possibility to live in the same JAM network as Polkadot?
2 Likes