There seems to have been quite the debate lately on whether or not to use $OP as the token for gas payments.
While this may look like the most uniform and best way to go, some users have rightfully pointed out that this mechanism is terrible for value accrual towards the $OP token itself.
The reason for this is because Optimism’s security still comes from Mainnet Ethereum. Hence the fees for this security need to be paid in Ether.
This means that the protocol becomes a perpetual seller of its token to capture $ETH in order to pay for this security. I’m sure you can see why it’s not the greatest idea to have consistent selling pressure from the protocol itself.
Okay so how do we go about this? How can we increase demand for the $OP token if it’s not going to be used for gas? How do we make sure that $OP does not just become another worthless governance token?
Here’s an idea:
A token that generates $ETH for stakeholders (or stakers) while simultaneously burning itself EIP-1559 style with every transaction. Here’s how it would work in theory:
Users transact on Optimism > Gas fees are paid in $ETH > L1 Fees are subtracted > Leftover fees get added to the treasury > the treasury uses 20-30% of $ETH generated to buy and burn $OP > 70-80% of the $ETH fees that’s left gets spread across staked $OP tokens.
This way, the Optimism economy is perpetually rewarding itself as usage grows, while being able to incentivize growth with a token that has created a “value” loop as antidote to the worthless governance token sickness.
Assets that generate $ETH for their holders will significantly outperform in the long run imo. $OP can either become one of these assets or eventually be vampire attacked by an anon team.
This only concerns “revenue” generated from transaction fees and what to do with it. Not related to the community fund of $OP tokens that reward projects or charities etc.
What do you guys think?
