It’s interesting to consider what we think is positive impact behavior right now and moving forward.
If we look at Optimisim as a City we want it to become denser, more poppin, we want our friends to be here, we want the cool stores to be here, we want great nightlife etc.
While we want the city to be poppin, we want to maintain the quality of life - this could be largely solved thru public goods funding.
Mainly, I’m curious about how opinionated the Optimism collective wants to be about incentivizing specific behavior.
If the collective feels it’s fine to subsidize certain protocols, I would suggest
Incentivizing L2 bridge (f.e. Hop) liquidity to allow citizens to easily get to and from Optimism
Incentivizing DEX liquidity & usage (f.e. Uniswap) so the network effects become strong enough to overtake mainnet
Incentivizing efficient asset allocation f.e. using Lending protocols - people focus on TVL, but more important is that assets are productive
Incentivizing deployment of contracts that are used - this could be a catch-all for the whole economy, specifically rewarding smaller projects and NFTs and tokens. But obviously easily gameable
i will give some suggestions for airdrop #1 regarding eligibilty criteria here is
At list use optimism bridge one time to fund his account and deposit at list 0.001ETH or if not use bridge then at list deposit 0.01ETH from any other sources
make at list 5 transaction in optimism network in any type. or use optimism network at list 1days or more
total 5 transactions value is at list 5$ or more
if any one meet this criteria then we consider for optimum user airdrop apart from that repeatOptimism Users*
DAO Voters
Multisig Signers
Gitcoin Donores
Users Priced Out of Ethereum active users criteria is same who published Optimism Gateway is good
Some suggestions here, will use this comment as my personal list of potential improvements:
Give users the ability to see a “detailed breakdown” view which will show them exactly why they were (or were not) eligible for a given category. Would significantly reduce the amount of noise in Discord where users are asking us to double check if the algorithm ran correctly (it did).
Avoid vague category names like “Optimism User” or “Repeat Optimism User”. We’re not actually rewarding Optimism users in general, we’re rewarding a sub-class of Optimism users that fit a given behavior (necessary because we have to filter out spam somehow). Using a generic category name like “Optimism User” creates a sense of unfairness for people who were users of Optimism but didn’t hit the minimum usage requirements to get the bucket.
Look into ZK attestations for users that own multiple wallets to prove that they do, in fact, own multiple wallets and can therefore get the bonus for those wallets together. Unfortunately there are some clear problems with this approach, unrelated parties could come together to pretend to share the same wallets to get the bonus, effectively giving people more tokens than they should fairly receive.
I’m making the case that Addresses that deposited to Beacon Chain Contract(ETH validators) are among a set of the Ethereum community best suited for these tokens, for various reasons I go into this thread (https://twitter.com/GLCstaked/status/1519382570244390912)
If OP plays a role in decentralisation of the sequencer then this makes even more sense, existing validators are most likely to run nodes for optimism. every validator I’ve spoken too, has expressed interest to run nodes on L2.
Every airdrop eligibility criteria I have seen in this space can be gamed, but addresses in this set must have committed a non-trivial amount of capital until the merge, must be confident in the Ethereum communities’ ability to execute its roadmap and be positioned for long term success. must provide physical infrastructure or pay for it to keep the validator active on the Network, this must be persistent which incurs electricity costs, hardware costs, internet provider costs and time/effort for maintenance.
I plan to create a governance proposal, for allocating a portion of the remainder of 14% airdrop tokens to beacon chain contract depositors, anybody interested in discussing this get in touch with me via twitter *my username
I think this is a really interesting proposal. As I mentioned on Discord, I would propose that any mechanism that rewards Beacon Chain depositors/validators take into account the following:
Whether or not the address is a solo staker
Whether or not the address uses a minority client
We have an interesting opportunity to highly incentivize certain beneficial behaviors on the Beacon Chain if done correctly.
The Sybil attacker draining 500K OP tokens and it can be used as sequencer attack in the future. This is only the surface that people found and reported which could be the tip of the iceberg
Please seriously consider blacklisting these addresses from the Airdrop#1 and the future airdrops.
We understand Optimism encourage network volumes and activities but kindly consider the security of the network as the heart of the chain, ser.
I’m having my followers discussing on this network threat from Sybil attackers and express strong opinions on this feedback
I think the approach to the airdrop is great. But for whatever its worth, under “priced out of ethereum” the threshold seems to be high IMO. 2 transactions a week on L1 is not a cheap endeavor for smaller capital users (like me). If we were “priced out of ethereum” it was because we couldn’t afford to transact very often at all on L1 so we used other L2s to participate. It just seems to me it isn’t accurately named. Maybe “L2 explorers” would be more accurate. If you want to hit users who used bridges to expand to L2’s because we don’t have that kind of money then transacting twice a week on L1 is not us. The earlier adaptors and more wealthy definitely hit that mark. I think it just depends what the goal of that category was, but either way probably not the most accurate name.
It’s not possible to see which validator runs which client. Some data can be gathered from block proposals but you can’t 100% be sure about the client everybody runs. That’s also a the reason why we don’t know for sure what the real client diversity is.
But I also think individual node operators should be in this drop rather than big staking firms.
I couldn't agree more with your post. I think the length of history and total transaction count of layer 1 wallet should have been explored rather than transactions after bridging, during what was a brutal gas period.
I am So great full to have hit 3 out of 5, and as a good Ethernaut I'm paying my penance by checking off the other 2 after the fact.
I come from nothing and Ethereum, Uniswap, ENS, and now Optimism have made me feel included in a way I've never known. Just for being curious Thank you Thank you
Personally I believe the OP team didn’t handle the airdrop correctly. Sure you are trying to avoid large Sybil attacks for 100’s of wallets. Though, any person that even wanted to try OP with a single bridge and a few swaps should of been included. I mean, even a small amount compared to the other checklist requirements, a 100 tokens or something. They excluded 200k wallets and likely lost a ton of future users in the process. It basically was a Paraswap type exclusion on a lesser scale.
Perhaps split those recovered Sybil wallets tokens between the single bridge/swaps wallets that used the protocol. It was wrong to exclude people that did support OP on a lesser scale, still supported OP.
absolutely on “length of history” because I think that will get you closer to actual people rather than burner wallets. Excited by this either way just want to contribute if possible.
First of all, thank you for a great airdrop - clearly a lot of thought went into this and very much looking forward to seeing how Optimism develops from here.
My feedback is related to the Gitcoin Donors criteria. Why was this criteria only applicable to L1 Ethereum? Feels like it is unfairly weighted to an L1 Eth user, as those that made donations via Zksync did not qualify. I feel like if the criteria is called “Gitcoin Donors” it shouldn’t be about the chain the donation was made on, but the fact that the address has made a Gitcoin donation.
If this criteria is included in future rounds, please consider donations that have been made on Zksync (and other chains if applicable).
