Proposal to counter 0xJohn op initial claims

These people should not be punished especially if they are active optimism users. I would understand if they sell off and aren’t optimism users, but the only people this really hurts is the poor. People that already have money have no need to sell. It is a terrible idea to implement an action that overwhelmingly negatively impacts the poor.

Rich people have no need to sell while poor people are basically forced to sell.

1 Like

I agree completely. Perhaps it makes sense to give a slight reward for holding, but bear in mind many people are struggling financially and those who can afford to hold likely are not in that category.

Also in many countries, airdrops are taxable events. Someone could get theoretically punished financially if the token struggles to reach a decent price as they will have to pay taxes on the initial drop, but may not have any realized gains.

As a first cycler, I am very happy to get my first optimism airdrop, but it’s also a brutal Bear market with no end in sight. I have sold a little less than half of my airdrop, but kept all my funds on optimism. I think if the team is considering excluding sellers from future drops, they should prioritize people who moved their funds immediately off chain first.

I am extremely excited to keep using Optimism especially now that I have real funds to participate with on chain. However, if Optimism takes a harsh stance against people who had to sell out of financial necessity, I will seriously rethink that position.

I believe both proposals have a point. But what we should focus on should be about how Optimisim and $op holders should benefit. My idea is…

“In order to benefit upcoming $op airdrops and other events, you must hold at least as much as $op you had been awarded before”. So by this way, we give chance to sellers become optimist back again and show that we don’t care the ones who doesn’t care us. This can only add value to $op and it is a fair way, no punishing but only rewarding.

What do you think?

2 Likes

Yeah, even i’m not selling any $OP in my wallet, i still think that people should be able to sell their token. but $OP should have something to incentive people to encourage them not to sell instead.

Yeah this is the same for me. I was sort of hoping for a dump before the public start buying in because I want to minimise my tax obligation but also keep my OP tokens. I thought about waiting until the new financial year (July) to claim but if it pumps a lot then I would need to need to liquidate a third straight away to pay to tax.

1 Like

I respect your position and I agree that there is nothing wrong with those people who ditched up to 100% of their op, but if you have to be realistic in those cases, for example, that clearly the proposal of this new innovative system does not It is not interesting at all and I do not see anything wrong, specifically in that case, that they are not considered eligible for another airdrop, what is more, there have been posts about what this project is about and what the purposes are clearly and I repeat again, in the most extreme cases where it was sold until I would say 80%, from my point of view they are only interested in the money and I do not harm it

Totally agreed with this method

what is a token when it cant be traded? there should be staking to keep people from selling

If we don’t want the token traded, then it should be locked to the user or vested. Retroactive punishments based on subjective measures of “too much selling” are not the answer.

Who is saying that all the OP tokens should sit in the wallet? The original argument states that people who sold their airdrop immediately after receiving it should be held accountable. I don’t know what you are objecting with these, but it is certainly not the initial proposal by 0xJohn.

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

So, can’t people decide to limit the participation of others if they are taking potentially harmful actions for the overall community? Should everything be allowed to pass as long as it is doable within the defined rules of the system?

Regardless of their intentions or needs, accounts mentioned in the original post did abuse the collective by their actions, should we allow them to not only get away with this, but also continue to gain more?

Also even if we accept that somebody is entitled to use their “free will” to hit you, then they should not object you using your free will to hit back at them.

I support your proposal. Crypto is decentralized and people’s actions with tokens in their wallets shouldn’t be policed

agree,NO sell,NO buy,NO new comers to join OP ecosytem.

I will buy maoe OP,when op dip

Agree with this statement. Op$ should be moved to interact with the ecosystem better than standstill.

The cost of something is what you give up to get as mentioned by adam smith. I agreed to your counter as we should seek the strength of OP token. In my opinion sellers should be eligible again, but to avoid overbearing in large wallet sellers, I would suggest to lower down their rewards.

support your point of view