Extended ineligibility for future airdrops

To Optimism: Cobie is giving free consulting, reflect and make something good from the advice he is giving. You want to enable good governance and a living community long term so don’t give in for the paternalistic impulse.

1 Like

Trolling in a governance chat, classy ser.

Perfect. Maybe we can just use the Squidgame token dynamics?

Proposal to send 1M $OP to HitmanDAO to execute suggestion #2b

Everyone seems to want witch hunts and cancel culture. Allow free economy to happen. Stop trying to cancel poor people. The only people who sold are people that needed the money.

This only hurts poor people, and all the people with a million OP to throw around don’t understand this. When you can’t afford to pay rent or get groceries, you don’t have a choice.

I know this is the normal in the United States, but this is international. You don’t have to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and you don’t have to cancel everyone because they didn’t do what you wanted them to.

If noone was suppose to sell their OP then they could have done a vesting period like luna. “You made money and I lost because you sold” is what is going on here. Its like 5 year olds throwing a tantrum, and you would think there has never been an airdrop before in history.

Also of note, Uniswap airdropped to all users, including those with failed transactions that never even really used their platform. They have done just fine. If I want to sell and buy my tokens 20 times I will, and if I am punished for it I’ll just go somewhere else that allows freedom. And many others will too, and you would be leff micromanaging a dwindling user base that is over-governed.

Anyways, OP has a better argument than myself that may be generally more well accepted. Whatever reason you want, cancel culture is a bad idea because once you run out of enemies to cancel then next thing you know you are the one canceled.

Thankyou cobie for your rational, well spoken, and simple explanation of just a few of the reasons why excluding poor people from future gains is a bad idea.

1 Like

Hey! First of all I really appreciate you writing this. This is really a nice explanation and is super valuable. I feel like my job here is done =)

I want to clarify I’m not myself particularly in favour of filtering out people that sell.

And I even less judge people who sell. I mean I personally got the ENS airdrop and sold it after a few days. If I wasn’t working for OP Labs and didn’t want to involve myself, I might have sold this one too, who knows. No judgement there.

But I also thought the proposal wasn’t stupid, and deserved a proper answer. Which you have now delivered. Nice :ok_hand:

10 Likes

Cobie, are you a delegate? I would love to delegate to you.

Also, couldn’t blacklisted people just make a new wallet? AND well if you don’t allow new users in on future airdrops it defeats the purpose of airdrops >>> attracting new users <<<. It would just fatten up a select subset of existing users.

If anything optimism should seek to be more inclusive, not less.

Check my proposal:

Its taken from Reddit Moons (Which are on testnet still), no need to reinvent the wheel… just use what works.

Thank you for typing this all out so I don’t have to. I sold half of my OP reward because I will have to pay significant taxes for pressing the claim button. Has nothing to do with my opinion on the protocol, in fact I really like Optimism and it has been a pleasure to watch it grow despite its issues.

There are 69 comments on this post rn, so I though I’d comment and ruin the moment.

IMO, cobie’s opening post was well done - we should actively encourage expression in various forms. I don’t have the full context here, but this content should not be hidden or ignored. I would recommend, instead, to add a tag like “satire” or something for those who miss it etc. In this particular case, I’d say satire was quite appropriate.

Generally agree with the sentiment (as I had commented earlier) that sellers should not be “blacklisted”, there are perfectly good reasons to sell whilst being aligned with Optimism - save for the obvious sybil cases, of course.

1 Like

can’t believe this governance forum is free lol people are down bad
I’m going to sell my airdrop after seeing that many people missing this obvious satire
“community” does not look promising
Good luck Justice League

Cobie has the most thought out response to this proposal

2 Likes

This is a very well written piece and I thank you for writing it, I also concur.

Without reiterating the points youve already made, I’ll try (and fail)* to keep it simple from a narrow/more concentrated perspective.

Historically, I am active in both governance and innovation, on and off chain, for any any project I am active in. To name a few: YAM, DARK(segmented release, one of the first polygon native tokens, eventual failure), veDAO, and FRAX. These statements can be (chain-wise) verfied by my synonymous twitter/eth/discord handle “Lyule67(.eth)”.

I sold all my $OP simply because at the moment I am financially hurting and over burdened and I was beyond grateful for being included in the airdrop. The same was the case with my $UNI airdrop, and my $ENS/airdrop. My soul genuinely hurt reading that due to temporary circumstances I might suffer lasting consequences, ae being shunned in the very place that I love the most, the place I have dedicated more time to than anywhere else in the last 5 years

While I understand the desire to cut “the fat” or burdensome non-contributing (f)actors from the system (and/or future airdrops), I think a rolling blacklist is a terrible idea. I love the narrative of crypto, I love Ethereum’s mission, and I love what I believe we all are working towards.

The idea of free and open, distributed, censorless systems ESPECIALLY in regard to public goods is probably the greatest objective, the greatest movement, the greatest narrative, I have ever seen, much less been a part of. The Ethos of Ethereum is what brought me here, and what will keep me here til im dead.

The money ive made along the way has been life changing, and I have been forever grateful for that, but it truly was and remains but a great bonus to what really matters, which leads me to my conclusion:

(TL;DR) Unless im mistaken, we all share the goals of universal inclusivity, of building not only (a) much more efficient and resilient system(s), but FAIR and incorruptable mechanics, in short, to make the world a better place and to change as many lives for the better as possible. Pushing for a rolling blacklist on the grounds of “deadweight/dumping” does none of these things. Im sure, like many before you, your hardwork and generosity literally changed many lives for the better.

Many people in crypto possess 0 traditional crypto-esque skills, yet still strive to and do make a huge difference to the benefit of us all by other means. Maybe they’re a struggling artist who freely dedicated time and work to various unpaid advertisements and sold to support themselves another month. Maybe, like me, it was just horrible (and miraculous) timing and saved me financially. Maybe they live in a less fortunate economy and the immediate benefit was far greater to them than the power to create change in the system later.

Almost everything in life is circumstantial, and I implore you (Optimism Coop) and anyone else not to make permanent decisions based on temporary circumstances/actions.

At the root of it all, I believe most of us come to crypto to make the world a better place.

Regardless of your decision, I want to thank you, truly, for being profound contributors in this space, and for fighting on the frontlines of arguably one of the absolute most important hurdles between us and global adoption. I commend you for your accomplishments and, for the benefit of us all, wish you well on the road ahead! (PS, thank you for proving my 2017 “rollup” hypothesis correct, I KNEW it could be done !!)

In finality, I am all too sure the last 72hours have been a rollercoaster of emotions for the Optimism Team, and I know there are plenty of thankless, entitled, arrogant a****les who care about none of the aforementioned, but they, I believe, are the minority, and I for one am nothing less than thankfull for your contribution(s).

STAY OPTIMISTIC (=

Thank you for your time,
I apologize for the length.

  • Lyule67.ETH
1 Like

The first and second halves of your comment are literally polar opposites.

1 Like

how about putting the minimum voting power to 271.83 as it stated on the allocated airdrop per address.
so, everyone who sold should rebought their tokens

1 Like

hahah, this guy is genius.

Vote yes to this proposal. Tokens were not provided for “people to speculate on future prices” or “provide income”. OP should have known that many users would dump the tokens during a strong bear market, this is opportunity to adjust in second airdrop. I ineligibility on subsequent airdrops is akin to airdropping tokens with vesting period.

0 CAP FOUND thanks ser @invesersebrah

I agree to some extent with the ideas presented here, but I think the originally referenced proposal was just a poorly relayed idea that you are taking at face value. Obviously it doesn’t make any sense to restrict future airdrops purely based on whether an account sold their allocation, but I think it is very important to use governance participation as a criteria for future airdrops.

I definitely disagree with the lazy participant ideology for a number of reasons.

Is a holder more valuable?

Disagree here, delegation is incredibly easy, and people’s participation in governance is vital to the livelihood of the chain.

As is the case in any democratic society, it is a moral imperative for members to contribute to equitable governance, whether this be through delegation or direct voting. None of this experiment works without people contributing to governance, and it has been shown time and time again in crypto and elsewhere that governance is not something that can just be left to a few seemingly benevolent parties.

Why does price matter

Token price will strongly affect Optimism’s user acquisition efforts, as protocol incentives will be paid out in OP. There needs to be incentive to hold or acquire the token (Prior to actual value accrual being added (pls)), otherwise the token will just be farmed to a point where the incentives are worthless. All of the other incentive programs are done on the backs of holders, and they deserve to be compensated more so than those who sell and immediately realize their profit.

You raise all of these valid reasons for people to sell the free tokens they got to lock in profit, but somehow don’t come to the conclusion that holders are taking on all of that risk and should thus be rewarded moreso than those who sold. I have no problem with people selling the airdrop, but doing so is inherently less beneficial to the ecosystem than someone holding/buying and participating in governance.

There are plenty of ways for active users to acquire OP going forward, as many different protocols were given an allocation to distribute. These incentives can be “gamed” however you like, as they are there to simply bring activity to the chain. The airdrops on the other hand have no business going to people who will just dump them.

Conclusion
The point of the airdrop was to equitably distribute OP to as many real users as possible with the limited toolset available in DeFi, not to “reward” people for being here.

There is 0 value added by giving tokens to people who don’t plan on staying long term. Temporarily pumping usage numbers is pointless, and we should be focused on distributing OP fairly to those who have an interest in the long term success of the ecosystem.

Thank you for listening and please don’t flame me on tweeter

Take some rolling snap shots. Those that don’t have any of the governance token don’t get any more airdrops of the governance token. Simple. Market actions are useful, both positive and negative. Does a person own the token? Yes, then they are part of said economy/government.