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

144

Good idea, I would support this proposal :smiley:

145

aggree, as an $OP holder i would appreciate

146

I donā€™t agree with this proposal. Optimism is a rollup network for ETH and it should remain using ETH for gas fee and $OP should be used as a government token.

What Iā€™m actually looking for is to have more use cases for $OP other than delegating such as having LPs with $OP pairs, something like what weā€™ve seen in Velodrome. If Optimism network does grow with more DAPPs and more use cases for $OP, it will attract more investors to Optimism ecosystem, thus increasing the TVL as well as $OP price.

2 Likes
147

I strongly support this. Letā€™s get it done.

148

yeah its good, i think its better for OP in long time

149

agree totally with this proposal

150

I do not support this proposal.

151

I donā€™t support doing this without more indications of how it will play out in the market.

I DO support funding a committee to investigate the potential outcomes of this change. We need to do research, maybe build a prototype and test it in the wild.

The worst thing we could do is blow up the network with bad market incentives because we were in a hurry to drive up the price. This feels contrived to me. Like using a burn to increase price, itā€™s not really adding any value. Itā€™s a token just to be a token.

Sure, fund a small scale test and some research to see if this idea has legs. Otherwise, Iā€™m against speculative changes with huge unknowns ā€“ which only serve to pump the price and complicate the user experience.

Tread carefully. Experiment in a sandbox not in production

152

Some concrete reasons why using OP as a gas token is a bad idea:

  • Using ETH as a gas token is a massive UX improvement. I (personally) was very confused about how to make my first Polygon transaction because I had to get MATIC tokens. I have spoken to many people who have had a similar experience with Polygon.
  • Using ETH as a gas token signals alignment with Ethereum and improves Optimismā€™s brand as a rollup that is strongly tied to the Ethereum ecosystem.
  • Using OP as a gas token is not a trivial task and adds complexity to the Optimism software that goes against the minimal diff + EVM Equivalence philosophy.
  • Switching from ETH to OP exclusively seems like a non-starter, which means Optimism would have to add support for payments in both ETH and OP at the same time, which is even more complicated.
  • Sequencer needs to pay for fees in ETH to publish transactions to L1, which means that they must have a constant stream of ETH coming in. As a result, the Sequencer would be constantly selling any OP they receive on L2 for ETH.
  • Since Sequencer pays for fees in ETH on L1, gas prices in OP on L2 would have to consider the exchange rate between ETH and OP, meaning that we would have to include an oracle or enshrine some AMM to determine the current ETH/OP exchange rate. Would seriously increase protocol complexity.

I could keep going, but there are many reasons why this is not a good idea. We have other ways to accrue value to OP but from a practical perspective I donā€™t think that this is a good way to do it.

3 Likes
153

You are rightšŸ‘.
This idea takes Optimism away from what it wants to be.

154

not a good idea. maybe I would support a proposal of distributing a part of tx fees in ETH to OP holders. and not right now maybe in a distant future.

1 Like
155

This will bring OP success more and more and we will have more use case for OP

156

I am against this proposal, like all other proposals of this kind (burn OP tokens, restrictionsā€¦) that are aimed at personal profit for the moment, and such ideas are proposed without analyzing the technical side, the concept and the vision of Optimism.
A good solution would be to focus on the concept of impact=profit and not to make proposals without perspective that only follow personal interests but focus more on proposals, ideas, and contributions that will have a positive impact for the whole ecosystem.

3 Likes
157

yep diligit is right these are big decisions and one should think about them a lot if someone creates a proposal like this it should be worked a lot on its proposal and should show the results of its analyzes/works

158

NAY for all the reasons stated. At this early stage requiring the use of OP given the pervasiveness of ETH would be a selfish, self-serving sin that will not help us onboard the masses.

159

I donā€™t think itā€™s possible

160

I highly recommend to increase the utility of the token. No one is interested in a simple governance token with a max. supply of 4.3 billion tokens. If OP has no more utility than voting, the price will drop heavily. I see the importance of a decentralized governance but without addtional utility, it will lose its role when other L2 networks launch which provide more utility (e.g zkSync)

2 Likes
161

I think people underestimate the role governance plays in a protocol, especially when adoption starts to kick in years down the road.
This seems like a bad idea because the purpose of L2 is not to enrich the token holder but to bring L1 users to more sustainable grounds while accruing value for the protocol. The proposal suggests using OP as a transactional token, this is a model most common in L1s and rightfully so. However, implementing this model in L2 will bring consistent sell pressure, unnecessary complexity to achieve what exactly? and fake volume for the OP token.

3 Likes
162

Feels like you want to hardfork or start a new chain. For what benefit?

1 Like
163

Yes yes yes strongly agree with this.

1 Like