Similar experience here. Very slick and clear airdrop process, with great explanation of the airdrop conditions and process. Loved the delegator selection system with the themes and all, although technically this forces users to choose a delegator in a short window meaning more risk of delegator concentration. A pseudo-random selection from a voted list could be a nice concept too for those who are not educated / donāt have time to look at it. Otherwise might reproduce same flaws as in traditional system and politics.
A bit disappointed with zkSync not being taken in account for Gitcoin donations especially with the ācombined criteriaā system but at the same time this is free tokens and more energy needed to be spent for bot filtering and criteria design itself. Not the first project struggling with zkSync in their airdrop so I imagine this is an harder thing to do (or that Gitcoin got sybil-ed with it ?)
About future airdrops, I am not sure if they should be done to EOA or directly to the projects building on Optimism (those projects can then individually decide how they distribute to EOAs)
The DAO decision should be a sum from a wide range of users, not a few people that are Sybil attackers.
This could even ruin the network we are creating!
Gitcoin donors via Zksync who donated prior to the cut off date for airdrop #1 donations on L1 (the same allocation as Gitcoin donors in airdrop #1 should be applied as I think this is something a lot of people were disappointed in)
OP users that have interacted with a minimum of say 5 applications on Optimism
Members who have contributed on here (although I do not know how this could be implemented, but I think it would help bring more discussion this forum)
As someone contributing here quite a lot Iām not sure thatās such a good idea. We might see a lot of meaningless noise from people just trying to get their interaction numbers up! Thereās also not way to filter out sockpuppets / Sybils on the forum (or Discord for that matter) so it would be an easy metric to game.
I completely agree with you about the zkSync Gitcoin donors though. I got that part of the airdrop because Iād used mainnet to donate for a round or two, but people who were smart enough to use zkSync straight away are if anything more likely to want to participate in governance of an L2 than those who just used Ethereum L1!
I concern about some people can claim the airdrop before the official announcement. I donāt 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.
Iām 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.
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 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 thatās 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). Itās appreciated to have some tokens but surprised that the reasons flip flopped.
(Hoping thereās 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 personally donāt 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 everyoneās 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?
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 āsecurity hygieneā using diff wallets for diff chains.
Love this idea