would love to see that!
2 Likes
As a builder on Optimism, I have a different view and I think it would be a mistake to enable $OP as a gas token on Optimism Network. Reason is the following: regulatory uncertainty.
As of now, there is no regulatory clarity around the securities or non-securities status of tokens in the USA. Optimism is a US based project and, to my knowledge (I could be wrong), they did sell tokens to finance the development of Optimism (which is still on-going), they also hired the service of a market maker (Wintermute) etc⌠I donât blame the team at all, they did it for good reasons but, from a legal standpoint, all of these good intentioned moves could backfire at some point, depending on the SECâs mood and judges appreciations of the application of current regulations to the $OP tokens.
This is why, as a builder on Optimism (Fairmint is Optimism-native), I greatly appreciate that the $OP token is actually NOT used as a gas token. Because if the $OP was to ever be considered a security by the regulators (and I hope it will never be the case of course), then, if $OP was used as gas token, that would simply KILL the Optimism network. Using ETH for gas is A LOT safer from a regulatory standpoint. And, to be honest, I donât think we would have opted to build on Optimism had this not been the case.
As I am seeing a lot of support in favor of $OP as gas token, I wanted to voice my total opposition as using $OP as a gas token 
10 Likes
Thanks for sharing this important point of view I didnât consider before. The strongest arguments are against this proposal. The voices supporting it perhaps didnât read those arguments carefully. Itâd be a good idea to close all Threads and Open a new one collecting arguments so people could read them before pronouncing themselves.
5 Likes
I like your opininon and I see where your concerns are. My reply although its very harsh so please forgive me but I need to say; âfuck the SEC!â, who cares what they think, whether if your tokens is a âsecurityâ or not. They are a bunch of criminal and corrupt old men. Lets give not to many fucks about them.
We are bulding the future they are the past and whatever the community wants we should follow.
2 Likes
Absolutely agree if thhis happend its gonna be huge more use case for OP !!!
1 Like
While I wish we didnât need to worry about the SEC, the reality is that they exist and it would be best if we didnât make OP a target for them. Weâre not yet at a point where we can completely bypass the US market and ETH is a much safer token from a regulatory standpoint.
There are other reasons to stay with ETH as the gas token as well. Itâs much easier for people moving from the L1 to L2. Using OP as the gas token introduces a barrier to new users.
4 Likes
Good proposal but as a L2 for eth i dont see it happening without binding OP to the ETH. Also think about the regulations. If weâre talking about increasing adoption it might be a good idea to reward people for staking OP with ETH or some stable currency & have some governance by the tokens. Also timely rewards for the users not the obvious ones but the people who actually adopt to the network. There are many degen things i can think of.
2 Likes
Thank you for pointing it out
1 Like
Good job, I love that idea
1 Like
That makes two of us. Itâs too bad to be used only for governance. I hope it can be used as a gas bill.
1 Like
Iâm interested in the answer to this question too
1 Like
This will give the token additional value. The ecosystem can gain a significant advantage. And it will be easier for beginners to figure out how to pay gas, in my opinion
1 Like
Great take, love this and it definitely is something that myself and Iâm sure many others hadnât thought about
3 Likes
Dual token model, while attractive for OP may not be the best path forward. There are several other places where OP has utility. Perhaps for speedup or tip OP can be used instead of ETH as a start. Some of this revenue could be split amongst the community and community pool.
Has anyone considered just enabling it for âSpeedupâ and âTIPâ ?
2 Likes
If the ETH collected for gas was 15% more than was needed and the excess ETH collected was used to buy $OP⌠Would it also make your regulatory-spidey senses tingle?
2 Likes
Anything that doesnât put the functioning of the Optimism network itself at risk is fine by me. I pointed out my opposition to the âuse $OP as gasâ idea because, if $OP were to be classified as a security by the SEC, it would really cripple the network.
In the scheme youâre proposing, if $OP were to be classified as a security, it would undoubtedly put more constraints on buying back $OP. This would be an issue if the $OP buyback is done at the protocol level as it would put the protocol under more regulatory risk.
I hear the argument of @S4t0sh1 and I tend to agree that we should not let the SEC guide how $OP should be used. $OP has been created as a utility / governance token and the community should be free to design its usage accordingly. But I think we should also âplan for the worstâ. The SEC attacking Optimism for unregistered sale of securities would definitely be a black swan event that I hope will never happen (and if it does, we should fiercely fight it) but what is most important in my view is to make sure that, no matter what the SEC does and no matter what happens to $OP, the protocol isnât affected and continues to âjust workâ.
7 Likes
totally supportďźbest idea for OP
2 Likes
Now it seems that this proposal is of little significance. The optimistic network does not need to use OP tokens as fuel, which is tantamount to superfluous.
4 Likes
I agree, Native Token Should be used as a gas fees.
2 Likes
I agree with this. This function to native token is the best way
2 Likes