Airdrop #2 Feedback Thread

We would love to hear your thoughts on airdrop #2! In order to keep the feedback in one place, please reply to this thread with your thoughts and suggestions.

Good feedback includes:

  • Suggestions for how to tune spam filters to reward real users.
    • Includes sybil resistance as well as improving false sybil positives.
  • Positive sum behaviors you think contribute to the community.
  • Airdrop logistics (size, frequency, etc)

Please leave constructive feedback so we keep the signal to noise ratio high!

Thank you!!!


As a recipient, I cannot complain too much. But as suggested improvements, perhaps also factor in:

1) Number of governance votes cast (either on Snapshot or Agora). I.e. This will reward real, regular governance participants irrespective of their delegated vote size/power. More votes cast (irrespective of voting power) = more impact on Optimism’s future, and thus according to Optimism philosophy should also equal more profits accrued.

2) Number of ‘completed Quest’ NFTs held. I don’t think this criteria should be overweight, but there should be a reward to testing new apps and possibly onboarding for regular use. Also, by counting this as a criteria it would validate, reassure and show follow-through to many who genuinely believed Quests would be a major influence on AirDrop 2.

3) While it’s clearly stated that, “participation in this governance forum will never be used as a criterion for a future airdrop”, there are ways to reward forum participation without attracting spam, low quality posts. I.e. the blanket non-consideration of Forum participation could be a false sybil positive. For example, all of our Forum Profiles list the ‘number of hours read’ or the ‘number of hearts received’, etc. Thus we could use high-quality, long term engagement in the Forum as a criteria or marker of positive sum behaviour.

EDIT 4) POAPs collected at Community Governance Calls. The number of these POAPs held can be a strong, clear indicator of those who are deeply involved in Optimism Governance. I’ve only been to a couple of these calls, but both times the attendee list was a ‘whos who’ of Optimism leaders (real, real, real users, builders and ambassadors). Rewarding these POAP holders will inherently reward the OP Community Leaders, but will also incentivise attendance and participation in these meetings.

But overall, I was very happy with the Airdrop, and really appreciated it. Including the ease of receipt, i.e. it just showing up in my wallet. This was a great surprise and better than having to run the gauntlet of have to ‘claim’ on any possibly dodgy website.

Final general comment: OP price hasn’t crashed post AirDrop 2, so it looks like more recipients are holding onto their tokens and not just using the airdrop to make a quick buck.


Thanks for the informations.

1 Like

I think that while the community appreciates any airdrop, some were dismayed that the “OP Quests” weren’t taken into consideration as eligibility criteria for Airdrop 2. I think they understand that more airdrops will be coming, where participants will be rewarded,but the OP Quests in particular dangled the carrot of airdrop eligibility.

1 Like

What I can say is that the reactions to this airdrop were quite strong. And that’s understandable. This airdrop surprised us all : the timing, the low % distributed and the very (too?) selective criteria.

This being said, if the goal of this airdrop was to disinterested the farmers, I believe that it is done!

More seriously, here are some ideas :

  • To reduce the sybills we saw several proposals like the Gitcoin passport, the amount of fee or transactions, the duration of interactions with the different apps etc… I think it’s a bit excessive. Especially for the passport, which requires doxxing to be valid. Nobody has yet found effective solutions to reduce bots. But use platform like Clique could be a thing.

  • About the good behaviors that contribute to the community I think you still have to take into account the on-chain data. The number of quests made, the number of transactions over the year, the governance votes… The goal is to have a wide enough range of eligibility criteria to reward users properly.

  • I think that making an airdrop too small in terms of amount is not a good thing in the long run. The idea is not to make only airdrop like season 1 but to find a middle ground.
    May be 2/3% of the supply per bach in order to keep it attractive.


I personally like a surprise AD. I mean, free $$… But I understand the perspective of those who completed Quests or performed certain transactions thinking they would qualify.

I think the Quests were a novel idea targeting all users to assist in introducing the OP Ecosystem and rewarding users immediately with an NFT. The NFT part was smart, as it “paid” out upon completion and incentivized behavior OP found important. Though it was possible that completing Quests helped you qualify. Ultimately just be active in the areas that interest you.

I liked how transactions on Eth were not part of the eligibility. As the OP ecosystem grows, many users may not have the need to leave L2, so that part makes total sense.

A lot of the issues I am reading may stem from OP’s messaging. At the time, adding the Quest feature to the website and promoting it in Discord did make it appear very important, which it is. But Optimism’s style is simple and anything that is created and launched by OP is a big deal. So when Quests launched only a few months after AD#1, it had an AD eligibility aura that was never put to rest.


Overall innovative approach to filter the users.

Few thoughts.

  1. We are focused towards funding public good and building a better world, not including public good funding, like gitcoin, clr fund and other, as a criteria was a surprise to me.

  2. Including power user was an excellent move. We need to push towards encouraging users to keep the sequencer busy.

  3. I understand why we choose to drop the reward directly to the eligible address but, given a chance, I would change it to claim process just like airdrop 1.


It would be nice to include the criteria for activity in this community in the airdrop. For example, there seems to be a way to give additional points according to the criterion of confidence level.


i think 20% of the airdrop should be locked for 20-90 days


There were cool mechanics in both airdrops to stop sybil farmers, but some other things are jeopardizing the community.

People always look back at how a token was distributed and use that to establish the legitimacy of the different protocols/chains, and with all these gymnastics, some of us are concerned that you might be messing it up.

The 2 problems with the mechanics established in the airdrops:

1- Heavily skewed in favor of people already holding OP:

Lots of users might not be participating in governance because they did not get airdrop 1, or they simply do not care about it. But, are not these real OP users too, that should have the opportunity/invitation to participate in governance that these airdrops represent?

This mechanic is favoring the accounts that already got airdrop 1, or the ones who already have a lot of OP, heavily favoring centralization. This makes no sense.

2- Great disparity in the amounts of OP received per account
Even if were not true that not all accounts should have an equal invitation to the governance of the optimism collective (wich is a very debatable assumption in itself), i dont see how its a good idea that, for example, some accounts get airdroped 5000x the governance power over others… which is exactly what airdrop 2 did. (some users got 1, some selected few 5000x… most got < 20)

I will put this in more practical terms, from my perspective:
Im a real user, and optimism is my main chain, and have over 500 txs. I got 80 OP, and I dont understand why some users have gotten 27k OP from the first airdrop, and those same got 5k from this second one now. Why do these people are 400x more valuable than me as a user? I dont think they even use the chain as much as i do. And most casual users from op received even less than me…its obvious they will be mad.

The disparity and centralization you are creating from the start is huge. And what its more worrisome is that its done at discretion, without any valid justification for it.

I dont know if “fairdrops” are the best, but at least you should be VERY close/striving to it. To have a wide and equal distribution as possible. If, lets say, you gave equal ammounts of OP to users who had meet x criteria, these airdrops would have been a lot more legitimate. Maybe not a fairdrop, but setting a 2x cap or whatever. I think both airdrops had good intentions from the team, but in reality they are heavily centralizing the collective at discretion, and taking away legitimacy of the project in the process.

Maybe its still early to fix the course, but that might imply, for example doing fairdrops from now on and not doing airdrops to any account that already received X ammount of OP… wich will make OP whales mad. lol.


I’ve already made my comment, but I do agree with a lot of what you say, and the idea that Optimism is at risk of falling down the trap of increasing centralisation, by becoming too top heavy at the expense of the wider, disaggregated individual users.


Thank you it was interesting to read :grinning:


got 10 OP in round 2 for doing all the tasks and spending so much time… my mistake losing time here


I think OP quests have to be included in criteria on nearest airdrop.


First of all, I was not imposed in the first Aidrop of Optimism. It was at the time of the first Airdrop that I started to test and look at what you could do. Thereafter there were the quests which sometimes was time -consuming, but nevertheless very interesting since they allowed me to discover a large number of applications that I use daily for some.
Suddenly after doing all these manipulations for 100% of the quests, coupled with use via Ledger which adds a lot of operation, the Airdrop seemed weak to me. My first feeling was disappointment. Then we can only be grateful, in any case it made it possible to reimburse the costs incurred.
On the principle I came for the Airdrop and will stay for the community and the quality of the applications!


Can this post represent the meaning of the project party?
If the project side really wants to hear the opinions of users, then I will post on the basis of @Axel_T Airdrop #2 Feedback Thread - #2 by Axel_T Let’s add some:
5) Participate in the amount and frequency of APP interactions in the OP network
6) Statistics of the monthly activity and weekly activity of the account participating in the activities on the chain
7) Whether the user uses the official bridge to cross the chain from L1 to the OP network
8) Whether the user actively participates in the interaction of popular applications, such as the number of cross-chains and the number of repeated uses of popular apps
9) Should there be rewards for users who deploy tokens or NFT contracts on the OP network?


to your first point: OP is a governance token since you use ETH on OP as gas. incentivizing governance as airdrop criteria isnt surprising at all when its the main usecase. everybody missing this or doesnt care should have less to say in this ecosystem and therefore doesnt get big airdrop allocation for this one critereum. (there are other airdrops with other criteria to come)


Now there are funds for new activities in your network, thank you


As for me, the results of airdrop #2 were quite inconsistent, but I fully support and understand the team’s approach to this round

Rewarding active users and ecosystem delegates for further development is very right

In the next rounds we should not forget about the other active participants in the ecosystem
Such as:

  • Users of NFT quests
  • Active users of voting and the entire DAO mechanism

  • Users who support the development of dapps in the ecosystem

  • Etc.


The last one for users who deployed NFTs and NFT smart contracts I think it would be best to limit it to the ones that donated funds directly to RPGF from the contract itself.
That would be a very healthy mechanism!

1 Like