Please i would start by saying that the crypto space and i believe Optimism comprises of a Decentralized ecosystem 'What is decentralization?
In blockchain, decentralization refers to the transfer of control and decision-making from a centralized entity (individual, organization, or group thereof) to a distributed network"
I would like to counter the 0xJohn claims due to the following reasons.
° We really cant test the strength of $OP tokens if they all sit in the wallet without interractions with other dex and cex.
° $OP token needs a heavy marketcap that way it attracts investors and the attraction we actually need it to gain. This attraction helps to not only grow the $OP tokens but also creates awarenesses of the projects built within yhe optimism ecosystem
° Advanced interractions:
Most users (from research so far) would probably have less funds to interract with other dexes within the optimisim ecosystem, and might deem it fit to also swap so that they get aquinted with other unused(uninterracted) projects living in the optimism ecosystem.
° In summary as a crypto evangelist I swore to help build and promote justice wherever the need be and by doing so I believe 0xJohn claims should be counted void since it would counter the decentralization which Optimism as a community tends to promote.
I support @Khrispyshots statement
Most users which are low on funds will definitely want to participate and interact with other dexes in the Optimistism Body.
I agree with you. It their token and they can do what ever they want, I read somewhere someone saying, imagine punishing Bitcoin seller who sold at sub $1, price appreciation is best lesson for them.
That being said, I do want to see some action to those address that claimed the token before the official announcement. I am not sure If OP Team can do anything to the CEX allowing the users to trade breaking their agreement but they can and should do something about those address.
I took my airdrop and provided liquidity on Uniswap.
there are many ways to participate and explore. I get that people that needed the cash are what we in the space call “hungry” and the whales that don’t care about the airdrop are less likely to participate in anything other than providing liquidity.
however, there are also the airdrop hunters that will do nothing but collect, sell, and move on.
crypto policing has never been good , a strong project will always have users and attract other users. paraswap did the policing now look at the price and number of users which has dwindled. how many people lost fortunes through luna . its nice to let people be.
Interesting proposal. I agree on the fact some humble wallet may have/want to sell OP cause of their small financial ressources. But first it’s very difficult to discriminate between profit max or small wallet… The ideal would be to tackle this max profit issue and offer ways to small wallet to get ressources from their time spending without definitively selling : like a lend by staking OP ?
Yeah, I’m with you on this one. I’d be ok with some sort of drop bonus for those holding X amount of OP on average between drops, as long as it’s not a continuous hold - trading is a good thing.
Good idea about incentives people to hold (like getter a better yield through holding), we should not forget that those people who get the airdrop are likely to be people who wanted to try optimism
I do support your proposal. Crypto is about permissionlessness and decentralization, so the idea of punishing the users for their legal decisions is wrong. If the users were selected for the airdrop, they contributed to the Optimism growth and not vice versa.
If the OP team were interested in keeping the price of the $OP token by every means, they could have made vesting for the Airdrop-1, or found other solutions.
For me it should not be about punishing people that use their free will to sell their airdrop,
but more about incentivising hodl’ers and stakers that support the network by not dumping, I’m sure this will be calculated into future airdrops.
I’m personally not planning on selling anything. an investment in the future
I’m in favor of this. People sell for many different reasons and it’s not our business what they do with them once they’ve claimed.
If it’s in their wallet, it’s their property, that’s the whole point of web3
Also I don’t like one of the first proposals to be put forward after the drop has the intention of excluding others. This sends the wrong signal to the community
I agree with the sentiment, but I think we should adopt a more nuanced approach to this.
We cannot just ban people for selling tokens that were gifted to them. What we can do is adjust incentive programs to reward $OP holders more. Token prices appreciate based on demand, and not by bans.
I know other L2s and protocols will learn from these insta-dumps and how we react to the situation.
