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

Just to make sure my position is made crystal clear: I would not support a motion to exclude those who sold (any, or all) $OP from the first airdrop.

1 Like

I think that an intermediate solution can be found. For example, give a bonus to OP holders but also see if these addresses are still using Optimism Network. If a user is using a dapp on Optimism it is right that they take the airdrop.

I would exclude all those who have sold OP tokens and who have used the bridge by moving everything to Ethereum (and then to the exchange?).

Everyone seems to want witch hunts and cancel culture. Allow free economy to happen. Stop trying to cancel poor people. The only people who sold are people that needed the money.

This only hurts poor people, and all the people with a million OP to throw around don’t understand this. When you can’t afford to pay rent or get groceries, you don’t have a choice.

I know this is the normal in the United States, but this is international. You don’t have to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and you don’t have to cancel everyone because they didn’t do what you wanted them to.

If noone was suppose to sell their OP then they could have done a vesting period like luna. “You made money and I lost because you sold” is what is going on here. Its like 5 year olds throwing a tantrum, and you would think there has never been an airdrop before in history.

Also of note, Uniswap airdropped to all users, including those with failed transactions that never even really used their platform. They have done just fine. If I want to sell and buy my tokens 20 times I will, and if I am punished for it I’ll just go somewhere else that allows freedom. And many others will too, and you can micromanage a dwindling userbase that is overgoverned.

Isn’t CRYPTO about FREEDOM? Trying to break away from those trying to financially control us? It is for me.


Cobie has posted a very thoughtful and solid answer on why he thinks this shouldn’t be done here: Extended ineligibility for future airdrops - #58 by cobie

1 Like

I don’t think this is a good idea nor is it necessary. Future airdrops should be based on what happens going forward; for participating in governance and things that benefit the network. This just seems like a non-issue to me.

You shouldn’t be rewarded for not selling but being a bump on the log while someone else sold for reasons but still contributes is punished. Selling or hodling simply shouldn’t be a factor in future airdrops once provable on-chain participation via governance exists. At least not from the OP team.

1 Like

I’m not really convinced that he addressed the key point from your Twitter thread, notably that:

I think confusion stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the airdrop is supposed to achieve.

This really is the key issue. Lots of the arguments from those thinking sellers shouldn’t miss out on the next airdrop seem to not be considering it in terms of the primary reason for the drop. It’s not to egalitarianly give people money but rather the purpose is surely to get voting power into the hands of those likely to use it. This should be the main consideration. All of the reasons for selling that he lists are perfectly reasonable (I made the point about tax above), but they are things that the Optimism Collective shouldn’t be caring about in my opinion.

The only part of his reply that seems to address the choice from Optimism’s perspective, rather than from the airdrop recipient’s is the following, which does make a reasonable point:

There are clearly other ways than governance for users to benefit Optimism.

I’m definitely against the idea of blacklisting addresses based on whether they sell or hold the token, but I do think there is value in making this one of the criteria in determining future airdrops, such as using it as a multiplier as suggested above (Users who sold the initial OP airdrop should become ineligible for all future airdrops - #34 by polynya) or as a binary criteria as per the 6 factors in airdrop 1. In Cobie’s example the User A should probably get some OP from using Optimism which should be another of the criteria. An additional User C who both used the rollup regularly and holds/delegates their tokens to someone who represents their values/opinions should get a larger 2nd airdrop than either of the first two.


I thought airdrops were used to create a good distribution of tokens. But I suppose fattening up a few whales and leaving most poor people out who sold is one way to do things too.

I guess no one that wasn’t included in the first airdrop can ever be eligible for any airdrop either or people who sold would just use a different wallet to avoid blacklisting.

Jeez, this proposal really just seems to benefit the people proposing it. Having thousands locked in value all over the optimism network means nothing, and you can’t sell any of your rewards, EVER, or you will be punished severely.

So… now how is this supposed to bring NEW USERS to optimism? Isn’t that the goal? If they are ineligible for everything… hmmm.

1 Like

The idea is great but not black and white, in fact we had the same issue with Moons and disscussed it for months until we came with this solution:


Maybe the whales should become ineligible but it wouldn’t be fair to the little guys who needed to sell to pay for bills and are active users on optimism because of they’re priced out on layer 1.

Can not agree more. We have to remove them from being a member of OP Collective.

I think airdrop 2 must be focused on impact projects. Instead of looking at who to exclude, let’s condition the next airdrop to wallets deserving to be in by participation, public good focus, etc.


Can’t agree more! They did tasks only for free lunches. They don’t deserve other future airdrops.

Totally agree because the original intention of the airdrop is to reward everyone for using OP, but this part of the user has abandoned the entire community

1 Like

I agree partly.
I think the users who sold part of the initial OP airdrop(not sold all of it )is ok. :slightly_smiling_face:

it’s not a good idea. punishment is worse than reward.

i recommend rewarding users who did not sell the initial airdrop, LP, and builder.


I think people who dumped their entire stack should be excluded. But people who are still using the network and it’s protocols shouldn’t be excluded. Those big wallets should be red flagged who insta dumped it but accounts which sold a portion and are still holding OP should get the eligibility. Insta dumping 30,0000 + is brutal

sounds great but instead of this there should be vesting involved in this.

1 Like

User who held the initial OP airdrop should become eligible for all future airdrops and bonus multipliers.

We should promote value adding behaviors. It’ll bear risk, but we can be optimistic (snicker snicker) about rewarding positive sum actions. Perhaps they can be further specified; e.g., users who sold $OP primarily for adding LP are rewarded in future rounds.

Doesn’t make sense to reward value extracting choices.

1 Like

Agree there should be a reasonable response to promote actions that don’t ultimately lead to a destructive environment. Maybe theres a scale that determines a fair percentage of what you’re able to claim on subsequent drops. This should allow for people to sell an amount with no penalty. ie - No penalty for any sale of 29% or below. Penalty begins at 30%. 30% sale = 30% less drop. Totally making these numbers up to illustrate the idea.