Good point about the reduced number of recipients; if we count operators instead of validators that decreases the number of recipients significantly and bumps of the airdrop amount even more. I just wanted to get us talking about some specific numbers to validate that this even makes sense, and it appears thereโs a road to do so.
7 Likes
These numbers look reasonable. I would definitely vote for something like these, broader distribution is always healthy.
4 Likes
Iโve been slow thinking about this for a few days and Iโm not sure that I agree. People who liquid stake through a service like Lido or Rocketpool are not really in the same position as those who run the validators, precisely because they receive a liquid token (stETH or rETH) in return, whereas node operators are really locking away their assets, itโs much more of a long term commitment to the health of the chain. Iโve got some rETH, but if I decided to ditch Ethereum I could easily swap it for PonziCoin or whatever, it doesnโt demonstrate the same level of alignment as ether locked in a validator.
Iโm probably willing to be convinced to change my mind on this, as there are definitely arguments that make sense for both sides and it is an interesting question.
4 Likes
This is a great idea but I wouldnโt make it a multiplayer. Often a clean address is used for a node deposit, so it is unlikely that it would be used for anything else, including Optimism dapps.
5 Likes
Most ETH2 validators are likely already eligible for the drop, imagine staking eth but not engaging with OP 
3 Likes
To solve the Lido (etc.) issue we could simply airdrop to holders of stETH since this will be held by individual users who despited to Lido. We certainly should not exclude users of staking pools since they represent a large number of genuine users, who simply donโt have the resources to stake solo.
2 Likes
If we are trying to retroactively reward people for locking up their ether, then what is the advantage to airdropping people holding a liquid staking token like stETH or rETH? How does that link to the concept that @GLCstaked is proposing?
Like I said, Iโd be happy to be convinced otherwise on this, maybe Iโm missing something obvious?
2 Likes
I am following the original post which does not mention anything about locking up Ether. However, it is worth noting that deposited Eth on Lido is locked. You can trade stEth, of course, but you have locked up Eth.
I take it that the criteria is to be staking Ether. I can see no difference - from the perspective of an airdrop - between a user who solo stakes and a user who stakes using a pool. stEth is staked Eth on the Beacon chain, just from a different route. These users are securing the chain just as much as the solo stakers.
We should probably be aiming for drops that are inclusionary rather than exclusionary when the terms are about helping out. Weโre not talking about sybil farmers here, but users who are invested enough in Ethereum to engage in staking, just without solo staking capability.
1 Like
I was going by these criteria from the original post, maybe โlocking up etherโ is too imprecise a term.
An example that might illustrate my point is the difference between running a RocketPool minipool (which needs 16 ether) vs holding 16 ether worth of rETH. With the former your ether is committed long term to the security of the network. You cannot unstake and there is not even a date set when this will be possible. Your stake is a demonstration of long term alignment to Ethereum.
On the other hand, just holding rETH isnโt a long term commitment. At any time I can swap it for something else, if another chain looks like it might grow faster than Ethereum I can exchange my rETH today for a different token, Iโm not tied to Ethereum in the same way.
I do appreciate the desire to be inclusionary, but in my opinion if the goal is to encourage certain behaviors that provide the largest benefit then by being less specific with rewards the effect is diluted.
What do you see as the advantage of airdropping to staking pool users? I think thatโs maybe what Iโm not understanding.
[Edit - spelling]
3 Likes
Perhaps there is a middle ground: to reward solo stakers with more tokens and pool stakers with fewer.
The reasoning behind rewarding pool stakers is that they are still helping to secure the network. They have committed less resources, but nonetheless they are participating in staking, just in a less full-blown way. So they should be rewarded, but not nearly as much as a solo staker.
More philosophically, I think itโs good we distribute in as inclusionary and wide a way as possible because it spreads the token around more, especially to users who may have less ETH or be less technically-savvy, which is really what most solo stakers are, people with less ETH and know-how, who nonetheless want to be involved in staking.
3 Likes
I appreciate the discussion on this, questions without obvious answers are the most interesting ones!
I think Iโm kind of stuck at the issue of liquid staking tokens. If I received stETH or rETH then it isnโt really about the amount of resources being committed but more whether they are actually committing anything.
Following that logic though, maybe people who staked though exchanges like Coinbase, where your ether is locked up and you donโt get anything for it, should be considered eligible. Not quite sure that seems right either but maybeโฆ itโs a complicated issue and I think Iโll take a step back and see what other contributors think for a bit.
3 Likes
I would just completely leave out liquid staking holders. Even though I hold these myself, it doesnโt really feel like it will reach the right people. Sticking to Node Operator addresses is best, regardless of how many validators they run on it.
2 Likes
One idea could be to take all the tokens removed from all the sybil farmers and redistribute a portion of them to validators. It wouldnt even take any extra distribution, just a positive reallocation. Idk how many validators will truly participate in OP, or if its a good idea to keep dishing out governance tokens to gitcoin, validators, users of other main chains, and generally non users of their productโฆ but I suppose very few airdrops have tried.
It could work maybe, although it is gambling somewhat. I mean really you ideally reward real current users and incentivize them to stick around with the vast majority of stake. Validators do play a significant role in securing eth, which secures op as well.
Thats why redistributing from sybil farmers makes sense, as it is certainly better allocated to anyone remotely related to OP than the guy basically attacking your governance and token (Mr. Sybil). Massive amounts of OP has been sybil farmed, even a small portion of these would probably result in a larger drop to validators than your average OP user.
This should probably be reassesed and reperportioned more toward your current community and users with smaller amounts going to non users. Otherwise you are kind of incentivizing people not to use your product.
Efficiency!
1 Like
I think I mostly disagree on the idea that staking ETH does not count as committing resources, just because you do it by a staking pool. Staking ETH = committing resources.
1 Like
I recall Binance doing airdrops -for other projects- to people that had tokens in their site. If people in Optimism wants to rewards everyone they can work with CEX or places like Lido/Rocketpool, but its more troublesome because all the conversations that needs to be done on both parts and arrange it.
Im a small fish and i staked in Binance end of 2020 till today i have my BETH, i dont have that much $$ and so not much ETH to do half node or even if i did for Lido/Rocket Pool it would take some big part on fees given my small amounts (1 digit), so i continued in CEX.
I know theres more people like me so i hope if this continues that you also take us into consideration!!
2 Likes
I think its best the tokens removed from this, go back to the airdrop portion, to be decided later.
I think validators, should get a large portion of the airdrop allocation, this becomes important later in decentralising Optimism, every validator I know has expressed interest to run L2 nodes when available.
I think the consensus here is to count unique individual node operators (not number of validators) we have approximately +69k unique accounts which is a large distribution.
glad to see discussion here, my intention is to target solo stakers (those running validators),
stETH/rETH or similar holders, have liquidity and are not providing the same useful service to the network that node operators do, which is the physical infrastructure layer of Ethereum, without them it would not exist.
Also much more difficult to implement, stETH is liquid, itโs on exchanges and Liquidity pools, holders can transfer and thereโs multiple ways to obtain these tokens. Where validators have simply deposited into a contract and would be eligible.
Another side effect
This has the potential to encourage decentralisation of ETH staking, by introducing external incentives to run validators (even with RPL or obol/SSV ) more unique stakers backing nodes to secure the network, and reducing LIDOs increasing (and concerning) share of Ethereum staking.
Other L2 networks, should think about this too, especially when decentralising the node set (sequencers), it will be important that distribution includes node runners, not just farmers.
5 Likes
I disagree. For example, stETH holders donโt have to care where the yield is coming from. They just use it because it gives them more value at the end of the day. People who stake with centralized exchanges probably care even less.
Running a node/validator is much more than just depositing ETH in a contract.
3 Likes
The purpose is not to give them much benefit, but to encourage such behavior.
3 Likes
Good very good point bro~
1 Like