Skip to content

New Lesson: Jupiter Perps 1#34

Open
mu1titudes wants to merge 4 commits into
jup-ag:mainfrom
mu1titudes:new-lesson-perps-1
Open

New Lesson: Jupiter Perps 1#34
mu1titudes wants to merge 4 commits into
jup-ag:mainfrom
mu1titudes:new-lesson-perps-1

Conversation

@mu1titudes

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Written by Toddler

Written by Toddler
Added links to 4 illustrations
@tpompon

tpompon commented Jun 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

📚 Lesson review — jupiter-perps-1.mdx

Automated review by the Academy lesson agents. Read-only — nothing was changed. Reviewed commit f19f393.

Summary: 🔴 7 blockers · 🟡 9 suggestions across 4 checks

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

Verdict: 4 blockers, 5 suggestions

Sev Where Finding Suggested fix
🔴 line 37 / img1_pool_model.png broken illustration (404) re-upload to the CDN path, or correct the filename
🔴 line 47 / img3_leverage.png broken illustration (404) re-upload to the CDN path, or correct the filename
🔴 line 55 / img4_fees.png broken illustration (404) re-upload to the CDN path, or correct the filename
🔴 line 59 / img7_dual_slope.png broken illustration (404) re-upload to the CDN path, or correct the filename
🟡 line 27 leverage never wrapped in <Term> wrap first use with <Term id="leverage">
🟡 line 27 collateral never wrapped in <Term> wrap first use with <Term id="collateral">
🟡 line 49 liquidation never wrapped in <Term> wrap first use with <Term id="liquidation">
🟡 line 35 oracle never wrapped in <Term> wrap first use with <Term id="oracle">
🟡 line 21 perpetual futures never wrapped in <Term> wrap first use with <Term id="perpetuals">

🔎 Accuracy vs docs.jup.ag

Verdict: 2 blockers, 2 to verify
Docs consulted: perps index / introduction / positions-and-collateral / liquidation / fees / faq

Sev Lesson says (line) Docs say (source) Action
🔴 "dual slope borrow model" (l.57) fees doc describes a single utilization-based slope; no dual-slope kink reword to "utilization-based borrow rate model"; remove "dual slope"
🔴 "any remainder goes to JLP" after liquidation (l.49) liquidation doc: all remaining collateral is forfeited to JLP — trader receives zero change to "all remaining collateral goes to JLP"
🟡 "drops below 0.2% of your position size" (l.49) no 0.2% figure in docs; FAQ states 250x max (implies ~0.4%) confirm exact threshold with team and cite the doc formula
🟡 "~50% at 2x, ~10% at 10x, ~2% at 50x" (l.49) not present in docs confirm arithmetic vs confirmed threshold before publishing

✍️ Quality (language · coherence)

Verdict: 1 blocker, 7 suggestions

Sev Where Finding Suggested fix
🔴 line 35 garbled "a live price feed from a third party provided" "a live price feed provided by a third party"
🟡 line 53 vague "Jupiter approaches fees in a different manner" "Jupiter uses borrow fees instead of funding rates"
🟡 lines 27 & 45 5x / 10 SOL example repeated near-verbatim vary or reduce the line 45 instance to a back-reference
🟡 line 25 "perpetual future" used bold (l.21) before its definition section move first-use into the definition section or gloss inline at l.21
🟡 lines 83–96 no <Term> components anywhere wrap "perpetual future", "collateral", "leverage", "oracle"
🟡 line 51 four fee components only listed inline, never structured add a short bulleted list or bold each component name
🟡 line 41 run-on sentence with tacked-on safety parenthetical split into two sentences
🟡 line 98 closing is pure navigation, no recap add a one-line recap before the cross-link

Quiz (proposed)

Verdict: proposed 4-question quiz

  • Q1 — price-alignment mechanism (borrow fees vs funding)
  • Q2 — pool-based counterparty (JLP)
  • Q3 — liquidation move at 50x
  • Q4 — liquidation price drift from borrow fees
{
  "questions": [
    {
      "question": "What mechanism does Jupiter Perps use to keep perpetual futures prices aligned with the underlying spot market?",
      "options": [
        "Funding rates paid between longs and shorts",
        "Borrow fees paid to the JLP pool",
        "Daily settlement and rollover",
        "A market maker quoting both sides"
      ],
      "correctAnswer": 1,
      "explanation": "Unlike most CEX perps that use funding rates, Jupiter Perps charges borrow fees to open positions, which flow to the JLP pool and serve as the price-alignment mechanism."
    },
    {
      "question": "When you open a position on Jupiter Perps, who is your direct counterparty?",
      "options": [
        "Other traders placing opposing orders",
        "Jupiter Labs acting as the house",
        "Liquidity providers in the JLP pool",
        "Chainlink oracle operators"
      ],
      "correctAnswer": 2,
      "explanation": "Jupiter Perps uses a pool-based model where you borrow assets from the JLP pool, so when you profit the pool pays, and when you lose the pool gains."
    },
    {
      "question": "A trader opens a 50x long position. Approximately how large a price move against them would trigger liquidation?",
      "options": [
        "Around 50%",
        "Around 10%",
        "Around 2%",
        "Around 0.2%"
      ],
      "correctAnswer": 2,
      "explanation": "Liquidation is triggered when remaining collateral falls below 0.2% of position size, which at 50x leverage corresponds to roughly a 2% adverse price move."
    },
    {
      "question": "What happens to a position's liquidation price even when the market price does not move?",
      "options": [
        "It stays fixed at the price set when the position was opened",
        "It drifts closer to market price as borrow fees accumulate",
        "It improves because unrealized PnL offsets the margin requirement",
        "It resets every 24 hours based on the daily funding snapshot"
      ],
      "correctAnswer": 1,
      "explanation": "Borrow fees compound hourly and reduce remaining collateral over time, causing the liquidation price to drift toward the current market price even with no adverse price movement."
    }
  ]
}

🤖 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/jupiter-perps-1.mdx.

Blockers (must fix):
1. Line 37: illustration img1_pool_model.png returns 404 — re-upload to the CDN path or correct the filename.
2. Line 47: illustration img3_leverage.png returns 404 — re-upload to the CDN path or correct the filename.
3. Line 55: illustration img4_fees.png returns 404 — re-upload to the CDN path or correct the filename.
4. Line 59: illustration img7_dual_slope.png returns 404 — re-upload to the CDN path or correct the filename.
5. Line 57: replace "dual slope borrow model" with "utilization-based borrow rate model" — the fees doc describes a single slope, not a dual-slope kink (fees.md).
6. Line 49: replace "any remainder goes to JLP" with "all remaining collateral is forfeited to JLP" — the trader receives zero (liquidation.md).
7. Line 35: replace "a live price feed from a third party provided" with "a live price feed provided by a third party".

Suggestions (apply if you agree):
1. Wrap first uses of perpetual futures (l.21), collateral (l.27), leverage (l.27), liquidation (l.49), oracle (l.35) in <Term id="..."> tags.
2. Confirm the 0.2% liquidation threshold (l.49) with the team and add a doc citation; FAQ states 250x max (implies ~0.4%).
3. Confirm the ~50%/~10%/~2% move-to-liquidation approximations (l.49) against the confirmed threshold.
4. Line 53: replace "Jupiter approaches fees in a different manner" with "Jupiter uses borrow fees instead of funding rates".
5. Lines 27 & 45: remove the redundant 5x/10 SOL example from line 45 (back-reference instead).
6. Lines 21–25: introduce "perpetual future" at its definition section, or gloss inline at l.21.
7. Lines 53–56: add a short bulleted list naming the four fee components.
8. Line 41: split the run-on sentence about halted price updates into two.
9. Line 98: add a one-line recap before the cross-link.

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 34 after pushing — this comment updates in place.

@tpompon

tpompon commented Jun 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Any comment on the feedback @mu1titudes ?

@tpompon tpompon mentioned this pull request Jun 10, 2026
Agentic feedback:
- JLP pool rewritten to be less defined
- Fees rewritten
- Typos
@mu1titudes

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Agentic feedback addressed. No further comments.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants