[READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Raptor

somehow I missed the proposal/idea to airdrop the beacon chain contract depositor. Airdrop Ethereum Validators (Beacon Chain Contract Depositors).

That does put this proposal somewhat less favorable. With the amount of token asked here, we can do more public good by distributing 20% of it to solo validator and beacon chain contract depositor.

Thank you.


Yes, but that was in the context of airdropping a few hundred OP to people who had already set up validators themselves. That’s a very different situation to giving away all the funds needed to run 10 validators to one entity. It’s more than 2,000x different in fact!

1 Like

But the outcome is the same and 50% of all validator rewards are spent on OP and then burned. Are any of the other validators doing that?

1 Like

No, that’s true, I guess burning half of the rewards you’re earning is the unique thing you’re offering to OP.

All we’re asking for is the community to support and help decentralize the Ethereum network. I spoke at length with @OPUser on discord and put in additional checks and balances. For most of the last 2 weeks we’ve had quite good community support for the proposal and would love to have your endorsement.

I’m afraid I have yet to be convinced of the value of this and so as of now will be voting no. Obviously my opinion my not be shared by all and so I guess we’ll see when it moves to Snapshot.


Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal.

1 Like

I have gave this some extra thought and although I don’t see it really benefiting OP in terms of usage or adoption, I do think it would fit as a public good.

The reason why is because a lot of the ETH validators today are mainly owned by large groups and having more individual ETH validators would be a benefit to ETH which benefits in return OP.

My only concern is that how long will you run these nodes for?

Also it may be best to have multiple projects run ETH validators as a public good rather then just this 1 project.

After what @MinimalGravitas shared earlier, I am also thinking about my position on this too. Both are public good, one side you are giving a single entity all the token but in return you are getting something extra and on the other hand, you are giving small amount to many entities but not getting anything extra in return.


Same, I don’t see any value since anyone can do it (as you said), even buying (and eventually burning) OP is meaningless compared to the initial impact of selling 800 000 OP for ETH. Also I don’t see any prediction for how long it will take to buy back and burn 800 000 OP tokens (considering the proposal I’m guessing it’s more than 20 years).

1 Like

It could be a requirement for all node validators to burn 50% of the profits if they were to be funded. My main concerns with anyone getting funds for nodes would be:

1- How long will the nodes be running?
2- What happens to the ETH after they stop running?
3- The profit from the nodes will take several years or more to even match what was originally dumped

Although its a public good I don’t think 1 person should be given funds for nodes. It should be split between multiple individuals if nodes are to be funded.


Even if its a requirement for all node to burn 50%, after reading the already existing idea to reward the solo validator, I am more aligned towards them.

We can reach much wider audience, we need to spend few % of 800K to do so and on top that, those funds will come from RPGF and not from gov funding.

also as Solarcurve has mentioned earlier:-

I think we can find higher impact causes to support.

Again to circle back with all this new information and ideas, I think instead of funding the node, rewarding the existing one is better idea and more towards public funding. Again not from Gov funding, that will come under RPGF funding.

1 Like

I’m not opposed to this. In the end decentralization of Validators is what it’s all about.

If the OP team want to do another round of airdrops under the RPGF, that sounds like a great idea to me, preferably per validator :slight_smile:


You’re only agreeing because of the number of validators you’re running :eyes:

1 Like

Hi @Optimus I sent you a DM.

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 don’t agree you should be be voting on this proposal seeing as you say you’re biased here and prefer an airdrop instead in that other link you posted earlier.

1 Like

The retroactive airdrop idea isn’t near a proposal yet, but I do agree that when it gets to voting those of us who might benefit from it should abstain. There’s 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 there’s also the slight risk that some people wouldn’t admit to the conflict of interest and wouldn’t mention that they have a validator running, but for the relatively small number of OP we’re talking about issuing I’m not sure this matters… would anyone risk their reputation for the equivalent of about $150? I’d 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.

That’s what this process is all about.

1 Like

Even after reading all the posts, I essentially agree with this statement and will be voting no accordingly.