Users who sold the initial OP airdrop should become ineligible for all future airdrops

Have seen enough wallets collect the OP airdrop, swap it straight to Uniswap.

These accounts are not playing a constructive role in Optimism governance. Instead of contributing to governance, they are maximising for profit. Nothing wrong with that, as per the airdrop criteria the coins are theirs and they are free to do as they wish. However, from Optimism governance’s perspective, such accounts are counter-productive for our stated goals.

Hence, this proposal is to discuss excluding such accounts in all the future distribution of Optimism’s airdrop. Also, we can make a public list of accounts that engage in this behaviour, so that other projects and DAOs can also choose to borrow from our work - I believe many projects will be interested in rewarding those who actually contribute to governance, rather than those who just see ownership given into a protocol as a short term liquidity bonus.

After identifying sybil accounts, the next progressive step is to identify zero contribution accounts which do not engage with the governance, and hence should not be eligible for any governance weight.

Lets look at some of the top tier/ multiplier eligible wallets accounts that have dumped OP and gained $40k.

Address 0x1092361f4eafdc6e4555ee761e87ef9c67b9e42f | Optimism - Swapped entire airdrop 32,421 OP for 45,894 USDC. Then sent it out of Optimism via HOP. Purely mercenary, net loss to Optimism.

Address 0x34cd8a21e92b0abd558ff02d6cc7a9e12daf0ff1 | Optimism - Swapped entire 32,421 OP airdrop for ETH and USDC.

Address 0x5f350bf5fee8e254d6077f8661e9c7b83a30364e | Optimism - Swapped entire 32,421 OP airdrop for 38,000 USDC.

Address 0xcffe08bdf20918007f8ab268c32f8756494fc8d8 | Optimism - Entire 32,000 OP airdrop dumped for 48,000 USDC.

Indeed, quite a few good actors have delegated, have added LP etc.

However these above addresses are just 4 wallets from hundreds of similar walelts who have dumped almost the entire airdrop. Many more such wallets can be easily identified from the Dune analytics page: Optimism's OP Airdrop 🔴🎁

Why should Optimism Collective continue rewarding these kind of mercenary actors who will dump their tokens on first sight? Why should any future airdrops reward these addresses?

Of course, it is their coins so they are free to do what they want, but at the same time it defeats the purpose of Optimism Collective and dilutes governance if negative sum participants keep getting rewarded airdrops that they are going to dump the very next transaction after claiming it.


Totally agreed with you :slight_smile:


Agree and I would like to see $Velo is going to exclude those address from their upcoming airdrop.

They are doing airdrop to OP recitative users and working closely with OP Team.

Why not start with $Velo


agreed. Its a marathon not a sprint


This is a great idea, it should be brought up in the Velo discord.


Agreed. Dumpers are just as bad or worse than Sybils. Optimism should stay vigilant about rewarding real citizens & not mercenaries.


I can’t say I agree. If we ban future airdrops to those that sell, we will have people who hold to get the next airdrop. Eventually, they will dump when there are no longer any airdrops.

Also, we don’t always know why people sell, they may need liquidity.

Banning people from all airdrops for selling once may be a bit extreme. It will also concentrate the distribution of the next airdrop which is not ideal as well.

The way I look at it is if they sell, then it’s an opportunity for those that want to be a part of the collective to buy.

Instead of focusing on banning people that sold, focus on those that held or bought OP. Come up with a structured proposal for holders.

Lastly, this post should of started in the ideas section. This is not a proposal. It lacks structure and concrete guidelines. Before creating a proposal submit it to the ideas section to flush out the idea.




I agree but partially. Personally I sold some OP to compensate the fees that spent during ~ 1 year, put some money into my pocket (I don’t work because of health issues and government doesn’t care about it, and the discrimination is skyrocketing) and kept the rest for governance proposals. It doesn’t mean I’m the dumper or anything else. Before Optimism I already got airdrops from another projects ( and there are few that I even didn’t know about them). Each time when I get some airdrop swapping max 50%, keeping the rest (most of them are already hard dumped ) for governance and actively participating on the voting.


There were several million OP provided to professional market makers by Optimism team to provide liquidity on DEXes. Plus, other projects like ZipSwap have already started liquidity mining where people can earn OP. Many other projects are also going to distribute OP in the coming days. Lots of people can get their share of OP from all these places.

It wont really concentrate ownership - all other accounts are allowed, and anyways around 250,000 accounts are eligible for the first airdrop.

There are maybe 10-20k accounts that have dumped the entire OP airdrop immediately on a DEX. The entire stack. If you look at the Dune dashboards, you can see these accounts easily.

There is no argument to make that these kind of actions are helping governance.

Those that want to can still be part of the collective and be welcomed here. Im just making the case that those who are selling entire portions of the first airdrop with the 2nd transaction (after delegate) are not in the interests of the collective to keep giving them more. I think it is a simple argument that can make the collective more aligned with people who believe in it, over people who want to just contribute bare minimum to get their airdrop and then bid goodbye as they have taken out their reward. The first set is very welcome, the second set should be treated in the same manner as sybil attackers or the same as mercenary liquidity problem faced by DAOs.


Totally agree with you :100:


Agreed perhaps a portion should be factored in. There could be people who sold a small portion and kept the majority etc


I fully agree. I am sure it is the same addresses that sold UNI on day 1 aswell, a long with all the other aidrops they collected. They are the dumpooors. Ideally their addresses should have been identified alongside the sybilors pre airdrop.

I hope most of the significant projects doing airdrops in the future will learn from what OP did regarding the sybilooors, and even improve it to exclude the dumpooors aswell.


I think it’s quite late for Velo to exclude them. Snapshot already taken and launch is today

1 Like

I agree with this proposal. Also, in future I suggest you don’t preannounce your airdrops.


Well, I totally DID sell at $3, but rebought at $1. It is crypto, and these tokens are meant to do more than sit in a wallet. Just because someone sells does not mean they do not have plans to rebuy. When there is an opportunity to make several thousand it is silly not to take it.

All that said though, the difference with me is I bought OP tokens after prices got better. These type of things need to be taken into consideration. It would be just silly not to make obvious money in Defi.

I mean, if we follow the line of thought from original poster, there would be no market for OP tokens. Also, where do you draw the line? Does the guy who sold half of his OP tokens get excluded? The guy that sold all high and bought low? Some people are very poor, and really didn’t have a choice but to sell.

I do like the sentiment, but it is overly harsh and possibly a more moderate viewpoint would be better for the community as a whole.

Also, what about the people who didn’t get airdropped but bought a bunch of OP tokens?

Maybe in the future just look to reward OP token holders, thats probably going to be the most considerate for all. ALSO remember, optimism users pay fees on every transaction whether they own OP or not. Everyone is a paying customer.

Just think things threw, as when you are mad you might not be considering all of the possibilities.

Oh and I should mention that it was my next transaction after delegating governance, then I rebought a couple hours later. I am not sure why I should be any less entitled than anyone else seeing as I hold my OP tokens but had profited off them. Just saying it makes no sense.


I agree, but at the same time I am wondering of potential unseen benefits of having part of the airdrop redistributed. It is making the OP token available to investors who believe that Optimism has value. Maybe it is good as 2nd degree distribution mecanism?


In my opinion people can do what they want with their airdrops. Only those actually interested in governance should actually be involved in governance. I got the airdrops and have not sold a single one of them. Of course will sold some when the time is right and if i need to.
We cant force anyone to be here. Airdrops hunters would most likely not add any value to any protocol. Yes i agree the subsequent airdrops should be restrictive and not be as generous as the first. Some people, who are very active in the OP ecosystem and have been from day 1 might have sold. They earned every piece of that airdrop. They have every right to sell as they are not airdrop hunters but actual ecosystem players. Are we going to exclude them from future airdrops because they sold their share? I dont think that is right or makes sense.
The future airdrops could be contingent upon being active in the ecosystems and contributing to many aspects like ecosystem growth, voting, governance, etc. May be the more you participate in these, the more you will be entitled to.


Yes, sir.

I will follow up with the next information.


I agree partly. I will suggest that Op take this idea with caution.

If user sell most of their Airdrop token >75% to CEX/DEX within 5 days. It is clearly they do not care about Op.

If user sell a small part of their aidrop token, I think it is still understandable. Professional Web 3 user may also need to realize some profit to have a life