Airdrop #1 Feedback Thread

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).

Thank you :slight_smile:


Moving this over from
by @Dhannte

I know OP team worked hard for this and I wont have any personal gains from this proposal (I use dhannte.eth for everything) but the problem with the multiplier is multiple addresses from the same person are not considered. I’ll elaborate:

If I have

1 Address for DAO voting
1 Address for multisig
1 Address for trading
1 Address for bridging
1 Address for donations

In terms of security, this sounds logical. But when it comes to the airdrop this person won’t receive multipliers even if he is a big contributor (Seen this from some EthernautDAO multisigners).

Would it be possible to sign a message with each address to provide proof of being the same person and have multipliers applied like if it was just one address?


Moving this over from
by @Dhannte

Reconsider this airdop address

2700 addresses to use op and arbitrum bridge where used to be Airdorped

This address is eligible for over 68k op and is clearly a farmer.

Maybe a channel or a discourse subcategory to report these things could be open?

Sorry if I was not allowed to post any proposals yet


Hey, thanks for airdrop. Why don’t we add additional criteria for total gas paid, i.e. compensate with OPs in proportion to total gas paid by address up to snapshot date. This seems to be the fairest criteria and helps not overlooking those who did a real impact on Optimism so far in terms of activity.

Thanks for airdrop. However, as Op become indpendent and can be interacted with other chain directly. I think be in active in L1 should be none necessary.

I will suggest that include 3rd party bridge in round 2/3 in the future


Awesome job overall on the airdrop. It’s clear a ton of thought went into the criteria. A couple things I’d suggest for future airdrops would be:

-Participation in Optimism governance
-Recognizing wallets that used another L2 rather than L1 to donate on Gitcoin before snapshot (the important action was completed regardless of the means)
-Recognizing more wallets that bridged over to L2(s)

In terms of future airdrop frequency, I would propose a quarterly basis of 1% of token supply for the first year…then possibly semi-annually afterwards.


Agree with incentivizing Bridges like Hop, DEX liquidity :+1:t4: :+1:t4:


Agree here, I also don’t get the current “priced out of ethereum” as I used bridges to L2 and still did a few tx on mainnet, but mostly I’m trying to focus on using L2s as I believe they’re the future.

I agree with this feedback. if you fix this problem, the comunity and ecosystem are gonna grown-up.

I agree with incentivizing bridges and maybe even other projects on ETH L1 that might be down to move over to optimism.

Agree with Joseph. It’s very simple and transparent criteria.

i actually think the specifications for the drop are pretty inclusive and fair at the same time. very hard to balance usually.

1 Like

Fully agree with all the improvements, especially for the first one. If the user can check the breakdown with the bots, it will save lots of effort in managing discord and have more meaningful discussions about the future airdrops. We can even have a bounty to ask the community members to check the scripts if there are any bugs before claiming the token.

Additionally, I have some concerns about the global filter in airdrop #1, especially for the snapshot’s bot-catching proposal. It’s an efficient tool to filter out the farmers but it will also lead to some false positive cases (real users voted on this proposal by accident) because it didn’t check the on-chain activities. It would be better to use different filters to cross-check a single wallet adress.

At last, thanks for your great work.

I am in favor of this.

1 Like

OPCO’s can issue tickets to it’s citizens for special events hosted by that OPCO, as NFTs.

Hop protokol users is good idea

The initial retroactive airdrop should be very small and the behavior of the wallets that receive these airdrops should then be monitored carefully over some time period T, upon which a slightly larger airdrop should be given that aligns with metrics defined by the Optimism community. Too often airdrops are a one-and-done thing, especially when retroactive.



First of all congratulations on all your success so far, and also congratulations with the success of launching $OP in what I believe is a really fair airdrop mechanism and one which rewards early Optimism users!

My only gripe if you can call it that would be that zksync gitcoin donations weren’t included and it was only those on layer 1, especially when one of the things you are trying to address is “priced out of ethereum” users.

My suggestion would be to include zksync gitcoin donations in the next airdrop round, perhaps make it so that they also had to be optimism users as well as zksync and also use the original cut off dates for airdrop #1 for that criteria to keep it fair?



You have to acknowledge that sybillers are your “real users” as well - and even more dedicated than the most - who were ready to waste their time and money in a bet that your protocol is going to airdrop anything in the first place. If you don’t like the allocation they are getting - adjust the requirements, but do not just cut them out for the sake of angry - and probably poor and lazy - twitter mob who is simply envious but have no intention of putting in any work. Airdrop should be a celebration of all your achievements, not a witchhunt for a momentary clout cough paraswap and soon hopprotocol cough. Protect the positive narrative, keep building - and the price will follow, it doesn’t matter if anyone is going or not going to dump their tokens, just focus on the quality of your product.

The only situation where sybilling isn’t acceptable is when it’s done on a basis of insider information (sus timing and exactly following the requirements) - you may cut these out - but this information shouldn’t get leaked in the first place.

Thanks, please be merciful


The only situation where sybilling isn’t acceptable is when it’s done on a basis of insider information (sus timing and exactly following the requirements) - you may cut these out

I think you’re forgetting that the point of the airdrop wasn’t primarily to reward accounts with a financial windfall, OP is a voting token that was intended to go to users most likely to want to contribute to the project’s governance (e.g. people who have used Optimism, participated in other governance voting, donated to public goods etc).

Would it make sense to give some people more voting power just because they

were ready to waste their time and money in a bet that your protocol is going to airdrop anything


1 Like