Change the use of OP tokens from a governance token to the main network token for gas payment

21

my point exactly - glad to see someone else thought this through a little.

4 Likes
22

Someone already probably mentioned this (didnā€™t read all 20 posts)ā€¦ but Optimism has to pay itā€™s feeā€™s in Ethereum. You would basically just be calling Ethereum an Optimism token, kind of defeats the purpose.

4 Likes
23

Not to be rude, but this is a terrible idea - it goes against many of the principles outlined in the constitution; such an unecessary change.

A better idea would be to use the tokens to capture a portion of the daily ETH profits generated from processing transactions, and possibly even be required/used to run a validator/sequencer when that decentralizes.

10 Likes
24

I am agree with this idea,we can allow users to choose to use $eth or $op to pay for gas.
This will increase the liquidity between $OP and $eth.
We should encourage L1 validators to choose $OP when receiving tips
Posvalidator is different from powminer. Unlike the latter, the former has nothing to do with anything other than profits. It is more willing to participate in governance by investing in and making its own Eth and running node protection network.

2 Likes
25

I think $OP should use for sequencing transaction not paying gas fee.

3 Likes
26

I think change to buy back OP token from ETH gas.

1 Like
27

ETH should be used to pay for transaction fees but the total supply is extremely high. I am in favor to reduce the total supply by governance vote. Whatā€™s the purpose of such a high supply? It cannot be reduced whereas ETH is burned

2 Likes
28

TL;DR If people want to make a loyalty point token thatā€™s a good idea but they shouldnā€™t merge that functionality into the current governance token. The current governance token will naturally evolve over time and have very different functionality than it does now.

I agree with you in that such a switch is a huge distraction from the clearly stated mission of the project. That said I donā€™t think a ā€œpureā€ governance token is a good idea but the sort of hybrid that would come out of this discussion is worse. Basically, tokens can either be a loyalty-point (permissioned) or money-like (nearly permissionless). Or a plurality of tokens can be used as a form of access control. Obviously, fungible tokens are more the former and NFTs the latter. Pure Governance tokens are basically FTs with various systems around them to make them enough like NFTs that governance can happen, but itā€™s kludge-y and the fluidity of the system is counterproductive.

Sorry, that was a bit of a ramble.

4 Likes
29

Ar fi o solutie grozava

1 Like
30

It is true that Rollups can have flexibility in terms of the gas token they can receive from users to process transactions, different modalities are already being explored in other rollups, especially those focused on DEX trading. Still, you have to ask yourself: ultimately, how would a sequencer get ETH to commit batches and state to Ethereum? In the short term, this would obviously have to sell OP. Then other questions, how can the sequencer take advantage of the mechanism? disfigures its role as a governance token?

However itā€™s too early for the token to discuss it, and evidently Optimism have been thinking about other plans for OP like transaction ordering and incentives/relationship between sequencers and verifiers, and for now, full governance.

3 Likes
31

I donā€™t think this is a good idea. Burning voting power on a governance structure feels counter productive.

I do like the idea of a more generalized ā€˜burn for gasā€™ mechanism that could apply to multiple tokens, but that comes with complexity and risk considerations that make bridges look simple. Perhaps we will see something like this emerge; itā€™s certainly an opportunity. However, singling out $OP to enable as a burnable gas token doesnā€™t support or improve governance in any way.

1 Like
32

I am absolutely against this proposal. Using OP tokens as gas has many flaws:

  • Optimism is EVM equivalent. Accepting OP tokens as gas means giving up on EVM equivalence. Moreover, Optimism has to pay fees to Ethereum Mainnet in ETH. How will the OP<->ETH conversion be handled?
  • Currently, the CALLVALUE opcode returns the amount of Ether sent to a contract. If the OP token is accepted as the gas token, how will this opcode work? Will it return the Ether amount or the OP amount sent to the contract? This can potentially break a lot of contracts.
  • Has the implementation been thought through? How is this going to be achieved? What happens to the users without OP in their wallets, are they stuck without any gas?
  • Finally, assuming that all the technical issues are solved, what are the benefits of accepting OP as a gas token?
12 Likes
33

remove the dumper.best way

1 Like
34

If in the other L2 the native tokens are spent as gas, why wouldnā€™t it be like that in the OP? I hope everyone agrees.

1 Like
35

Honestly, this is the only way that $op ever has any true valueā€¦ I love the governance tokens as much as the next guy, but its becoming over played. Right now its just another token with zero utility ā€¦ It should have always been the default gas option.

Is it possible to give the user the choice Pay with Eth or $op ?

2 Likes
36
8 Likes
37

I do not support this proposal and it would create all sorts of problems for the roll up as well I am sure.

6 Likes
38

100% lets be honest a small group of people will control most of the tokens anyways and their votes will be the majorityā€¦ Just how it is ā€¦ The entire ecosystem works with out the $op tokenā€¦

oh wait its a governance token to vote on things! aka vaporware

2 Likes
39

Totally agree. Thatā€™s a good idea.

1 Like
40

If OP will be used for gas fee then what will be difference between Polygon and Optimism? Optimism will be sidechain rather than rollupā€¦ Isnā€™t it? :thinking:

1 Like