Project Research Dossier - Jumper (JUMP)

Posting this here as the research text. The PDF goes up separately on the Republic side.

Project: Jumper (JUMP). Squad 肝肝, written by mrniu. Split across a few posts because of the character limit.

PROBLEM / QUESTION

Does Jumper's published tokenomics actually support a valuation read, and if not, which specific input is missing?

Short version of why I picked this. The sale is live, the headline number is public, and the number that would make the headline meaningful is not. I wanted to find out whether that is me not looking hard enough or an actual disclosure gap.

Part 2 of 3.

DATA & EVIDENCE (primary sources)

From the official launch materials dated 22 September 2026:

FDV $75M Fixed supply 1,000,000,000 JUMP Public sale vests 50% at TGE, remaining 50% linear over four months Soft cap $1M, hard cap $3M 5% of the sale set aside for The Republic community Sale date 29 September 2026 Perps still described as upcoming

From Jumper's own documentation and recaps:

Advanced shipped. Feature set includes output/gas/price-impact simulation, smart slippage, Flow order splitting and limit orders Earn and Portfolio launched 13 January 2026 Private Swap live since June 2026, routed via Houdini Robinhood Chain integration July 2026 Advanced integration confirmed in the CoW forum recap, August 2026

From LI.FI's docs, the routing provider underneath:

LI.FI states its own deployed contracts receive independent audit review before production, plus annual penetration tests and contract monitoring

What I could not find anywhere: circulating supply at TGE. Also missing is the allocation table outside the public sale. I went through the launch materials, jumper.xyz/learn, the monthly updates and the CoW recap. It is not there.

Part 3 of 3.

INTERPRETATION

FDV is the value of the entire supply. It is not the value of what is tradable on day one. So a $75M FDV on its own tells you almost nothing about entry price, because you cannot divide it by a float you do not have.

The usual workaround is to estimate float from the raise. That does not work here. The hard cap is $3M against a $75M FDV, which puts the public bucket at roughly 4% of fully diluted supply by value. Even in the worst case, where every public token unlocked at TGE, public float stays small. The public vesting chart is not the float story.

So the float that actually moves price is whatever the team, treasury and investor buckets release. None of that is public. And if any of those cliffs inside the same window as the public unlock, combined unlock is larger than the public schedule makes it look.

On the team side, the LI.FI relationship is real and checkable. Jumper was incubated inside LI.FI and the September materials describe a planned carve-out into a standalone company with its own capital and roadmap. One correction I would make if I saw it in someone else's writeup: LI.FI's historical venture funding is not Jumper's raise. The materials describe this as Jumper's first.

Scope point on security. LI.FI's audit statement covers LI.FI's own contracts. It does not mean every bridge, vault or token Jumper routes through has been audited. I have seen that inference made and it does not follow.

Also worth noting: company-reported metrics mix labels. Monthly active users and active wallets are not the same measure, and the periods are not always consistent. Volume is not revenue either. Both get conflated.

Part 4 of 4. Adding one more because the conclusion plus disclosures did not fit in part 3.

CONCLUSION

Two high risks. Disclosure, because the float and the full allocation table are missing, so valuation cannot be normalised. And dilution, because half the public bucket unlocks at TGE while the rest of the unlock structure is unknown.

Medium risks. Perps being not-yet-live caps how far the revenue surface can widen. Jumper's exposure to third-party bridges and vaults is not bounded by LI.FI's own audit scope. And the metrics ambiguity above makes trend comparisons unreliable.

Low risk. JUMP is described as a utility token without governance rights, so do not read protocol control into holding it.

What the record does support: a shipping product with a dated cadence, an aggregation thesis that holds together, a small and bounded public raise, and a verifiable incubation relationship.

What it does not support: any statement about fair value. The two inputs you would need are both absent.

So my read is that the $75M FDV is a headline, not a valuation. Once an allocation table exists, recompute against actual float and go through the unlock schedule bucket by bucket rather than only the public line.

I want to be straight about the weakness in this. I modelled the public schedule and I could not model the non-public ones at all. That is a gap in the analysis, not a finding, and it is why I rated disclosure high rather than medium.

RATING

Not rated. I do not think a rating is defensible while float is unknown, and putting a number on it would imply more precision than the data carries.

DISCLOSURES

No position. I hold no JUMP. No compensation, grant or allocation from Jumper or any related entity, and no relationship to LI.FI. This is research, not investment advice.

Sources are linked above and listed in full in the PDF. If anyone has the allocation table or a TGE circulating supply figure, I would rather be corrected than be right about this.