Do you agree with changing the use of OP tokens from a governance token to a main network token to pay the gas fee?
138 Likes
yeah its good, i think its better for OP in long time
21 Likes
strongly support this, let’s burn OP, not eth as gas
13 Likes
yeah.its good.This can help the project
8 Likes
yes ,thats so good.best idea for op
6 Likes
Yes, I think that in the future will be good to have OP as the main network token, but right now with ETH it’s good because it’s “more friendly” for users coming from L1
Besides OETH (ETH on Optimism) is a cool name 
4 Likes
I don’t think it is necessary to use op tokens as gas, its purpose is just to make the price of the currency higher.
8 Likes
if we make OP token network token, we can also run optimism on solana and ethereum both? think about it
1 Like
how to join optimism user?
2 Likes
Governance tokens are useless and worthless. This proposal needs to pass.
10 Likes
Yes I agree this is great
4 Likes
I second this.
My opinion:
A governance token should be just that, a token used for governance. What’s the benefit of using it to pay gas, increase the price? That’s not what a governance token is for - price should be secondary.
7 Likes
I’m strongly against this proposal. One of the unique strengths of Optimism is Ethereum Equivalence, it isn’t just EVM compatible, but is designed to operate almost exactly like mainnet. This means porting smart contracts across is as simple as possible, gas works the same, opcodes work the same, it means Optimism can adopt all the same EIPs as Ethereum with minimal extra work. Basically it’s an amazing advantage over just about everything else.
If we stopped using Ethereum for gas and switched to using OP we would be sacrificing all of that to what gain? The OP collected as gas would need to be sold for ether in order to pay the mainnet fees anyway so all it would really do is add an extra step to that process.
For anyone who is for this proposal, what advantage do you see to it that I’m missing?
56 Likes
This arguments make sense and I support them but the total supply of around 4.3 billion is very high. Any chance to burn tokens by governance voting?
4 Likes
Why? What purpose would this serve?
4 Likes
This is a fantastic suggestion. Why use ETH when OP can be a real contender.
Gives the token multiple utility. Makes many defi activities much more exciting and lucrative with a gas token.Demand comes from all protocols if you make it the native token.
2 Likes
No, it doesn’t seem like a good idea, because you can turn Optimism into a parasitic network of Ethereum
4 Likes
I think what you’re maybe missing is that most of the fees you pay on Optimism are used directly to pay for gas to post proofs/data onto Ethereum L1. For example about $260,000 in ETH fees were paid by Optimism users on the rollup in the last 24 hours [https://cryptofees.info/], of that, about $225,000 was spent on Ethereum L1 [Dune].
If Optimism were to collect gas fees in OP, they would still need to pay the L1 fees in ether, so they would have to sell the OP they just collected and buy ETH… so what would be the gain?
On the other hand, we’d lose some of the advantages of Ethereum Equivalence which make Optimism stand out over other rollups. It just doesn’t make sense as a sacrifice for no benefit!
24 Likes
I agree! This would be very useful for when there is high congestion on the network !
2 Likes
yeah - i have to agree with you on this. I’m not sure all of these people that are blindly in favor of this silly idea have taken a moment to really think about this at all and are just thinking somewhat selfishly and narrowly about the price of OP going up. I’m no expert on optimistic rollups but I have to assume that the current eth fees we are paying are collectively used to pay for on-chain transactions which is how the L2 network is able to utilize the advanced security and functionality of the ethereum network. So, if the native token to pay fees on Optimism is OP, then what is the exact process for paying the eth fee for those on-chain benefits exactly? Do you also have to add a clunky and unecessary process in which the OP paid for fees is swapped for ETH in order to remain being an L2 network with the benefits of L1 ethereum? Fairly sure this is a simple issue to be addressed with this completely pointless proposal which has the main benefit of adding complexity to this process.
Now, to address this claim, which is the backbone of this boneheaded suggestion, that governance tokens have no value or real use is just an indication that this person and those agreeing with them have absolutely no ability think about the future of this space 5 or 10 years down the road. It has yet to really take hold very well, but eventually a decentralized governance program and the token that enables it is going to be incredibly valuable with further adoption as this space, DeFi and Web3 continue to mature. Having voting power in multiple major projects with a robust history which helps to prove longevity of the biggest players in DeFi will be similar to the power of a wall street bank.
In closing - this is a terrible idea unless someone can correct me on the fee issue i described above. That seems like a pointless cash grab in the short term from a bunch of WSB moon boys which is a major change for this L2 system/network that hasn’t been considered.
Edit: i replied to someone making the same fee point i was - Sorry for duplication of info.
14 Likes