Does JAM need its own token?👀👀

Gavin Wood: I don’t know — but it’s a question we need to take seriously.

Here’s his logic 👇

1️⃣ There are no current plans to issue a JAM token
2️⃣ There’s no strong argument yet that a new token is necessary
3️⃣ But that doesn’t mean it’s off the table — just that nothing convincing has emerged so far
4️⃣ The real focus shouldn’t be “Will there be a token?” but rather:
– How do we make cores truly useful?
– How do we stop JAM’s functionality from being hidden by the “Polkadot = parachains” narrative?
– How do we help devs realize they can build entirely new kinds of things on JAM?

“If someone comes up with a better path forward in the future, things could change. But for now, our job is to make sure more people understand what JAM is, and what it unlocks.”

So the real question isn’t whether to launch a token, it’s:

How do we tell JAM’s story in a way that makes people want to build with it? Not just keep thinking of @Polkadot as “just parachains.”

PS: I think changing how people perceive something is always difficult — and it takes time.

If we were to launch a new JAM token in a quick and aggressive way, it could actually undermine the credibility Polkadot has spent years building. But on the other hand, if we simply rename $DOT to JAM while still keeping the Polkadot name unchanged, that feels a bit odd too.

So… what’s your take?

That said — I want to be clear — the point here isn’t whether we should launch a token or rebrand.

The real question is: how do we help more people understand the importance of JAM?

Maybe it’s about positioning JAM as a core piece of Polkadot beyond just parachains — through one or several compelling new services. 🤔