This is a terrible idea. First off, if no one sold off their assets it would look entirely like a team dump. Because they’d been the only ones selling., secondly this is all I have to add to this thread.
A crystal clear criteria should be: everyone who sold the airdrop BEFORE the official claiming started should be removed from future airdrops. These are the ones who sold between $3-4 and dumped the price whereas others who claimed the airdrop afterwards and are still hodling got rekt. The early sellers started the dumpfeast and the ones who still hodl are sitting on a token worth 75% less than one week ago. This is a no go in fairness!
Fairness? They excluded like 70% of the users they dubbed as sybil. Most were legit smaller users, they gave more to heavy backers which just dumped the token anyways. Very poor airdrop overall.
1 Like
This post is funny 
I don’t really see this as an argument. Block rewards exist for a reason, airdrops exist for a separate reason. We want long term alignment, we don’t really owe dumpers anything. People are free to keep transacting on the network whether they hold the token or not LOL.
I do not see any good reason for this proposal, perhaps instead of punishing people give them a reason to hold the token? Incentives and mechanics that bring value instead of locking people in.
I am not talking about the criteria. If some users can claim and dump before the official start of course they take advantage of the situation and the early FOMO.
This shouldn’t have happened
Loved this post 
Here’s my more serious take:
You’re contradicting yourself. Are you drunk? Lol. So your definition of “long term alignment” is bagholding it down, in the hopes that bagholding entitles you for future airdrops? Lololol. And similarly, optimism doesn’t owe bagholders anything, the tokens were given to you to do as you see fit.
Just holding a token brings ZERO value to the ecosystem.
Selling your airdrop, using that money to play in the optimism sandbox brings value
At the end of the day, value is what matters. Participating in the ecosystem as a whole. You can baghold it down. A lot of ppl will thank you for it.
“airdrops exist for a separate reason. We want long term alignment, we don’t really owe dumpers anything. People are free to keep transacting on the network”
Repeated user? - value.
Voted? - contributed= value
There should be a number of days bagholding as a requirement for future airdrops
Q: So what did you do to contribute to the ecosystem,?
A: Errrrr, I just claimed my airdrop.
like the meme of person who didn’t contribute to a project.
Lol
I think the eligibility for future airdrops depends on activities on Op. Do not worry, if they sold out Op, which means they will not have any more activities on Op. will not able to claim future airdrops.
Yeah I agree, and if you choose to forego you’re right to vote on proposals, you have no right to complain when the people that do exercise theirs. To me it reeks of a pretty transparent plea for more free money and attention from a non-aligned twitter celeb.
So you think @cobie wrote that for quote “plea for more free money and attention from a non-aligned twitter celeb.” ? I don’t think cobie is hurting for money or attention
I find it ironic someone who is for banning addresses for future airdrops which would result in lesser wallets being eligible so more for you accusing someone’s post being a plea for more free money.
Quite certain 9/10 people in the space would vouch for cobie
if you choose to forego you’re right to vote on proposals, you have no right to complain when the people that do exercise theirs.
Yes, sellers forgo the right to vote,. but we can complain & comment on other platforms about an extremely absurd proposal put forth. So in your utopian world, everyone who ever got an airdrop shouldn’t sell?
Don’t think many will want to be apart of a totalitarian dictatorship/“community”
Focusing on blocking adresses is useless. The persen can just interact with the network with a diffrent adress. Its better to focus on who to reward and if they deserve the reward they should be able to do what they please with the tokens. Like the optimism protocol is aiming to be the most governance focused protocol around. Reward people for doing work in the forum, vote on proposals and engaging with the community. Like a reward to the community that cares about the protocol. Create a hodl mentality by adding use cases to the token like staking, like discounts on fees on diffrent protocols on optimism if you stake and so on. Incentives and rewards instead of punishment.
Totally agree with you! Plus i would add that any extreme view taints the collective ideal of neutrality and community building. The OP ecosystem should welcome polarised viewpoints, accepting all, while also rewarding OG’s and loyal supporters. An emphasis on the latter is preferable over embarking on any ‘punishment’ campaign.
Great offer, I fully support)
I agree with you and I support this idea!
Not sure if this is a joke or for real? 
Apparently this post was flagged by someone for as inappropriate or a violation of community guidelines which is hilarious considering it’s not my quote.
Absolutely agree with this
I think this is not a good idea