Airdrop #1 Feedback Thread

You can check the use of different ecosystem platforms to verify that you are an Optimist.

This Airdrop made me turn my eyes and today they have my full attention. <3

I concern about some people can claim the airdrop before the official announcement. I don’t have issue about the OP price but this incident made the team look unprofessional.

First of all Thanks for including me into the community.

It seems off to a great start.

Whatever is decided for future airdrops I hope nothing is announced before snapshot. No frontrunning.

I’m not sure how governance voting will work but if there is voting on the subject, the snapshot should be taken before any voting decisions are taken.

That’s my 2 cents worth

1 Like

I have posted this idea as part of another thread, but just found this feedback thread. So will post this here as well. I think there is a lot of discussion about airdrop dumpers and how to effectively get users not to dump but actually play the positive sum game! I think is has to be the game theory that incentives are not just earned by being an early adopter but by continuing to be part of the ecosystem and actually contributing. I guess there is a need to be able to measure contibutions to be able to reward and retain net positive users. This will turn to a flywheel affect and will attract more net positive contributors.
I think also future airdrops that are big in size should think about having a vesting period and a way to accelerate vesting based on positive contribution. This way users will actually try out to be part of the community rather than just harvest the airdrop and move on! If we even have an increased retention of 10 or 20% more users that actually contributed I am sure it will be great for the ecosystem!

I agree with him.
Please consider this issues.

Are we not gonna discuss Phase 0 1Inch funding proposal ? It seems the team is planning on keeping the whole stack to themselves.

I think the main reason is that the marketing of the OP token launched by the optimistic team was too weak and failed to attract the attention of the market. There was no OP even on the CMC hot search on the first day of the launch. The team was too low-key, or there were problems with marketing ideas, and they failed to cooperate with several CEX joint activities in advance. It is clear that BINANCE, CB, and FTX have indicated in advance that they will launch OP transactions, but obviously the team has not Actively contacted the person in charge of the platform for negotiation, which resulted in the Binance recharge OP being stuck for 24 hours (perhaps to protest the marketing failure of the optimistic team), so the project wants to develop rapidly and gain strong support from the market, the team still needs to learn better marketing and co-op strategy!

Maybe a bug: appeared as having used optimism (correct), but then later I check back and that’s not the case, but now I am a DAO voter (not quite sure which DAOs it was looking at but yeah try and participate when I have time). It’s appreciated to have some tokens but surprised that the reasons flip flopped.
(Hoping there’s some love for gitcoin zksync users later - got to reward L2 usage.)

(Oh and I love the focus on retroactive public goods and a citizen house - hope it works out)

I believe in the team and hopefully everything is fine for us.


I personally don’t think that the airdrop was communicated or marketed enough, which may have been an intentional self-selecting mechanism for quality and active community pooling. I for one, had no idea that it was happening and would have played more of a role to earn the airdrop if I were.

What are everyone’s thoughts about this for the 2nd airdrop? Should we market it more or less, and do the rewarded behaviors or actions need to change or are they good as they are?

thank you, for first round op airdrop and i waiting for second round airdrop from op,thank you again

:heartbeat: Love this idea @Tiger

I found the first airdrop fair and the process to claim very instructive.

Some people sold part of the airdrop to provide the other half on a pair with OP in Uniswap by example. Those people contribute in the usage of the optimism network and help the OP token to be more liquid which I think is a good thing.

So I disagree with those who want to prevent them to be eligible for further airdrop

I think overall it was done well. i just have 2 points to put forth. Specifically these 2 categories.

In light of transparency, i qualified for 3 criteria, and yes it would have been life changing money if either one below was considered. however, i will state points objectively & without bias.

  • Donated to Gitcoin Grants on L1
    • This seems counterintuitive. If we are advocating for adoption of L2s, anyone who has donated/funded grants regardless of chain should have been considered.
  • Priced out of Ethereum
    • One can make the point that this is similar to the point i raised above. Also, while this is not specific to OP, i think the industry needs to come up with better ways of quantifying airdrop eligibility. im sure there are people just like me who use different wallets for different chains. we continued transacting on L1 via a different wallet. Yes, sometimes things cross over when u need funds quickly on another chain, so you bridge. but bummed nonethless to get penalized for practicing “security hygiene” using diff wallets for diff chains.
1 Like

I passed the criteria for this one due to donating once via mainnet, but completely agree that zkSync donors should have been included in this. I wonder if it was a data collection difficulty rather than an intentional omission?

1 Like

Even I thought they excluded it because it might be difficult to find the addressed donating on zkSync chain so out of curiosity I started looking into it, it took me few minutes to find Gitcoin public api with all the addressed publicly available.
So I am aligned toward intentional omission.

Here is the API if you want to check the address, you need to do gitcoin authentication to call the api.


Interesting, but is there a way to tell if that list includes both zkSync and Mainnet donors?

It has about 5x the number of addresses as received the Gitcoin criteria from the airdrop (Airdrop 1 | Optimism Docs) so I’d be interested to know why that is? Lots of linked accounts maybe that were dismissed as ‘Sybils’?

I not sure if its contains both mainnet and zkSync, but my address is there and i have only made the donation on zkSync, so one thing for sure that it zksync address were available.

and from gitcoin documentation “endpoint available for those who’d like to just get all addresses that’ve ever funded a Gitcoin Grant”, so It seems, that json contains all the address(mainnet/zksync and other supported chains too)

1 Like

that’s a good one ser. nice catch. it could also be that filtering the total amounts in terms of $$ wise if they were to set a minimum? if the idea is to open the floodgates to onboard more people to L2. having essentially 2 criteria involving L1 txns is odd.
tbh, also amazed at the numbers that 19,542 wallets qualified for the “Multi-sig signers - control over a large pool of capital”. - i’m just thinking out loud here, but suppose i’m a whale, with a large pool of capital, multi-sig but they are all just belongs to one person. that qualifies?

Hi neozaru. How can you contribute for Gitcoin from zkSync? This sounds like an interesting option for future donations