This has definitely been an interesting read.
It like the sound of airdropping OP retroactively to validators/contributors as I run one through rocketpool.
But I donât agree you should be be voting on this proposal seeing as you say youâre biased here and prefer an airdrop instead in that other link you posted earlier.
The retroactive airdrop idea isnât near a proposal yet, but I do agree that when it gets to voting those of us who might benefit from it should abstain. Thereâs possibly an issue that a large number of the delegates will also run validators/minipools and so the number of people left to vote might be small, but maybe this could be rectified by splitting the proposal into 2 parts, solo-stakers first (so you and I could vote) and then at a later date think about other stakers, such as RocketPool node operators (at which point we could abstain).
I guess thereâs also the slight risk that some people wouldnât admit to the conflict of interest and wouldnât mention that they have a validator running, but for the relatively small number of OP weâre talking about issuing Iâm not sure this matters⌠would anyone risk their reputation for the equivalent of about $150? Iâd hope probably not!
Retroactive airdrop will be very less in term of $ and I am talking lower triple digit number, if that is enough to motivate someone decision then I think we are doing something very wrong.
I am supporting that idea and not expecting anyone to abstain.
I think everyone should have the right to vote, regardless of whether they agree or not.
Thatâs what this process is all about.
Even after reading all the posts, I essentially agree with this statement and will be voting no accordingly.
First of all, I would encourage any to read this complete thread, we had some real discussion here and we can learn something from them.
Voted: No
Initially I supported this but after reading other users/delegates suggestion and feedback, I think we can do more public good than this.
Hello @netrunner thanks for thinking about the importance of running validators. However, I am aligned with the feedback from @MinimalGravitas & @OPUser later; although running validators contributes to the network, it is also an individual decision of those interested in this activity. In this case I see two options: Optimism gov as entity in some way contributes to maintaining validators for Ethereum (and in this case Raptor can contribute on this goal) or Raptor join forces with an open and reputable ethereum community so that the use of these validators (and security) is effectively better given, aligning (a little) more to the idea of public goods. Let us know what do you think. By now, our vote is No.
Thank you @SEED_LATAM_Joxes for taking the time to review this proposal. I think the idea of Optimism running / funding validator nodes to support Ethereum network is a good idea, and contributes to further decentralization and security of the network.
How this happens in practice, I am sure will be a matter discussed further amongst the community.
This proposal does not add meanginful value to Optimism: Voting No
Value-add: Buy & Burn mechanism - unnecessary use of funds
Amount: High
Op distribution: Bad
Co-incentives: None
Ethereum infrastructure including ETH2 Validator Nodes are indeed a public good that deserves funding. The incentives for entities & individuals are good enough to decentralize the network. This proposal may resonate well with some people that like the buyback and want to push the Op price up but there is much better ways to use the money, incentivize builders and grow the ecosystem in the long-term. Basically, youâd be a vehicle/fund raising money to invest in nodes and give 5%+ return and we donât want to see this now.
Eth infrastructure such as nodes are a public good but this fund should be used to encourage product development on optimism rather than nodes. Even if you commit to giving all or a majority of the income from these nodes back, this income could be used to support a protocol.
Far too much OP has been requested and this is not the aim of the governance fund. We have voted no.
Thank you for your time in sharing this proposal. Having more validator nodes is important for the overall ecosystem but the amount requested for one team to do this is relatively large and I donât feel this is the best use of funds for Optimism at this time.
Its actually very close I plan to submit a proposal the beginning of July,
Also regarding the OP amount,
We are targeting a small percentage of the airdrop supply available for the community left to decide on. This works out being much more than the 324OP calculated previously as that was based on valid beacon chain depositors before filtering out centralised institutions.
Due to the low number of actual unique validators This makes the reward on an individual basis quite lucrative and yet does not burden OP supply.
This is actually very important, as the main purpose of this proposal (publishing very soon) is the incentives this creates around ETH staking, if this were to go through it will have huge benefits to the decentralisation of ETH staking which in turn benefits OP L2 and is in line with Optimism ethos of public goods and sustainability.
This sets a precedent for other L2s and Projects to include validators in distributions
(we have seen similar effects on public goods funding via Gitcoin because of similar external incentives)
this could turn the tide on centralisation of ETH staking, the additional incentives will be a push for a lot of people to put the extra effort to run solo validators and reduce LIDO/and others impact.
This is why it is imperative to reward solo validators and for it to be meaningful, which simply due to the low number of unique validators it works out this way even with a small % allocation.
One thing I want to mention, which has been brought up about conflict of interest, both me and @MinimalGravitas run validators, One of the points of my proposal is including node operators in the discussion
Validators are not simply service providers like miners, they must own ETH and run the physical layer of the network without which wouldnât exist.
Validators/node operators should have a say in the development of L2, maybe not a large say but should absolutely have some say.
Hey I am late to this thread, I agree with this take however disagree with this proposal.
The proposal I am working will help contribute to the decentralisation of the Ethereum validator set, will be more effective in achieving this, as a public good to benefit both Optimism and Ethereum,
By distributing to all active âsolo validatorsâ and not one or a few entities to run some validators in the future.
Strongly encourage you to read this thread, Airdrop Ethereum Validators (Beacon Chain Contract Depositors) - #51 by GLCstaked
Some have mentioned about trying to aim for multiple projects to run validators, I think this is the wrong way. We donât need projects close too or partnered with optimism to run nodes we need more individual Stakers.
Lets not create more incentives to further centralise Ethereum Staking we have a chance to encourage more solo validators and a healthy network
I think there should be serious consideration on nodes, Optimism if it is to truly decentralise will require users to run full nodes on L2, and eventually decentralised sequencers, I am sure that the vision for Optimism is not for the infrastructure to be run by one or a few entities.
The reality is most market participants do not run nodes, one set of actors in the space do however and these are validators, most validators I know have expressed interest in running nodes on L2 when available.
This is one of the main points for âAirdropping ETH validatorsâ forum post (Airdrop Ethereum Validators (Beacon Chain Contract Depositors) - #51 by GLCstaked) and incoming proposal
While the intentions are certainly admirable, I donât believe Raptor will directly incentivize usage of Optimism at this stage, so Iâll vote No. A more appropriate venue would be Retroactive Public Goods Funding.
Fwiw just given there was a lot of discussion around public goods funding here, I saw clarification from @vonnie610 in Discord
"The governance fund is actually NOT FOR FUNDING PUBLIC GOODS. It is for growing the ecosystem. The Citizen house (which is not live yet) is for public goods funding.
The token house is for fostering and growing the ecosystem."
First things first.
Ethereum validators are NOT public goods
The term public good has been abused so badly itâs not even funny anymore.
A validator is performing a service for the good of the network and is being rewarded for it. Itâs nowhere close to being a public good.
That said. I will be voting NO here. Reasons are simple