I think it’s worth thinking about the rewards of those users who sold their tokens into the glass after the first Airdrop.
Many of those who received the first Airdrop sold the entire giveaway. I think this is a bad indicator on their part, since such users are not interested in the development of the project, but in the accumulation of their bags.
It is fair to assume that such users acted not even from one wallet, but from several. This has a very negative impact on the ecosystem. Since the money of investors and depositors goes into empty hands, who simply left the project.
We can safely assume that many users will explore the Optimism ecosystem directly from these same wallets. Therefore, it is worth disqualifying such wallets. They, as well as after the first time, will leave the project until the Airdrop pool runs out. Such users are not interested in the idea of blockchain, in the idea of cryptocurrency, in the idea of decentralization. Their minds are ruled by money.
I think it’s necessary: Remove the old wallets of those users who left the project after the first Airdrop.
But I think that it is worth boldly rewarding users who do this: Optimism Quests
This could be a good idea, but I think there’s a good chance that at least some genuine OP users would suffer from this.
I personally sold about half of my OP tokens, but I didn’t want to sell. I just knew it would make my life a little bit easier. I consider myself a genuine user and vocal supporter/advocate, so if I got punished for what I sold, then that would probably demoralize me a bit.
That said, I also hate the mercenaries who dump everything.
It is fair to assume that such users acted not even from one wallet, but from several.
The devs did manage to catch a lot of sybil accounts before releasing the first airdrop. Hopefully they got most of them.
A good balance might be to err on the side of caution and only punish the worst and most obvious mercenaries. That combined with the dev’s own list of excluded Sybil accounts could be effective.
Would it be difficult to differentiate those who sold their tokens from those who transferred the tokens to another address?
I transferred mine from my metamask wallet to cold storage.
It would be a shame to be penalized for that….
I agree with you. I was holding my OP tokens from the beginning of the airdrop. But due to some financial issues, I kept some tokens and decided to sell 90% of my OP tokens. But when I got out of it, I cancelled to sell my tokens and deposited back it to my wallet. But in the last, I needed some funds urgently and I had to sell almost my 90% OP tokens.
It doesn’t mean if someone is selling their tokens they are just an airdrop hunter or dumper. You get some situations when you have to do it even if you don’t want to.
In this situation, developers should check who sold it immediately after the airdrop and who kept/ hold it for a long term. And then decide eligibility for the 2nd airdrop. Also, They should check if those addresses are active or not on the Optimism blockchain. If they are not contributing to the community in any way ( by holding OP or being active on the network), they should be excluded from the 2nd airdrop.
This exactly. I know a few people who did and they sold knowing it would be better to re-enter later down the line. I don’t think we should exclude those who are simply managing their own money.
As someone who did not receive any of the first airdrop, I think that we shouldn’t penalize those users. Instead, the Optimism team should do the best it can to make the qualifying users actual users of the network.
People from around the world in varying financial situations received the airdrop. Some people have situations come up where they need to be financially responsible and that may include selling tokens. Also, what if they sold the airdrop but have since become a dedicated optimism user?
I believe that the filtering non-users should happen in the construction of airdrop requirements, not in what people chose to do with their personal finances at one point in time.
But I think that it is worth boldly rewarding users who do this: