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

We should cancel airdrops for anyone who has sold any type of token whatsoever in the past 6 months. Only holding should be allowed within optimism. If we could also block all IP addresses from accessing Optimism as well that have ever sold in the past six months, along with the wallet addresses.

It is likely that punishing these users for selling by not allowing them in airdrops will reach the same end result as blocking them but we should just be 100% sure.

All Optimism users should be mandated also to vote or delegate or be punished as well.

All protocols should only allow buying on optimism, and should be linked directly to bridges so the protocols only sell tokens directly from L1 or other L2’s.

Also slashing should be implemented as well for all sellers of all tokens.

We should definitely publicly post all wallet addresses who sell tokens to publicly ridicule them too. John has started this thankfully, so we need only add to the list. Good work.

Using protocols and being an active user of Optimism should count for nothing, ZERO.

It should be mandatory that any and all airdrops on Optimism have a TEN YEAR VESTING PERIOD. After the vesting period, tokens will be released to users, but they will have to sign a contract agreeing to drive a stake into their own beating heart if they consider selling, swapping, pooling, profiting, transferring to another wallet, wrapping, or bridging.

Protocols should be blacklisted for any type of rewards, as it is basically the same as selling for $0 dollars.

In fact, generally commerce in general involves someone selling something to obtain something else. Commerce should generally be banned and punished with airdrop blacklisting, slashing, ip blocking, wallet blocking, and stake driving.

Please, feel free to add more ways to punish, blacklist, stifle, chase off, block, hurt, cancel, destroy, decimate, eviscerate, ravage, annihilate, and decimate sellers. SELLERS will not be allowed here on Optimism, and we will let them know it.

We need to be EXTREMELY EXCLUSIVE here guys. That means EXCLUDING PEOPLE TO THE EXTREME. It is the only way to truly attract the people we want here.

It does not matter at all that we will discourage people who sold anything ever, even for a moment for profit and even 1 token because THESE PEOPLE are certainly one of the following:

-poor/ financially not good (we certainly want to punish the poor and oust them)
-defi users
-recently rekt by the bear market
-scared of losing money
-needed money to put in optimism protocols
-sick and had medical bills
-in debt
-just a bad person
-dirty degens
-clean degens
-got scared when price dropped on launch
-didn’t see the available use cases appealing
-SUPER poor
-“don’t believe” in voting
-thought it was “OK” to sell their personal tokens (note: they were wrong)
-had to deposit to stop a liquidation on an optimism protocol
-needed money to donate on gitcoin (donation is a form of selling for $0 and is condemned here)
-and just pure evil

STAND TOGETHER OPTIMISM COMMUNITY. Together we can clear out ANYONE WE DEEM UNWORTHY. Eventually we will be left with the select few… the proud… the perfect holders. In 50 years when quantum computers have effectively depreciated the internet and 99.99% of the perfect holders have died of natural causes, staking, decimation, and general whatnot we will be left with one.


We should strive to be so EXCLUSIVE.

PUNISH people for making THE WRONG CHOICE. Selling is not allowed here. Get out of here sellers. You are not welcome on Optimism, and we will show you where it matters, financially and socially/publicly through ridicule.

1 Like

Best so far and fully agreed on this! 100%

Makes sense! However, it is probably not the best to categorically deem those who dumped on the first day as airdrop mercenaries. Like you said, the tokens are to be used as they please and it wouldn’t be surprising that someone decides that they don’t fit in to the role of playing active governance. In that case we rather have those individuals “sell” their “rights” to a group more interested in actively partaking in governance. I mean what us the point of dead beat governors? In that case, how do we assure that the people who “buy” these coins are solely here for the purpose of the “governance”.

Agreed with this, I had to sell 25% to take some profits, but kept the majority.

1 Like

I would keep it simple and not get too caught up in what other wallets have done or will do.
If said wallets contributed to the ecosystem in any constructive way then they deserve a reward in my opinion.
Why would you remove the incentives to use and participate in the ecosystem (live and let live), especially at the early stages.

If some wallets dumped their OP tokens then let them, I’m sure if you didn’t dump you’ll probably get a multiplier for the next airdrops.

Some people probably don’t have the time or understanding to participate in quality governance so they sell their tokens.

Also what if they sold their OP to provide liquidity, make transactions within Optimism or test out other dapps with funds provided from the OP airdrop! Even if they bridged their funds to another ecosystem who cares, that is what our buddies at HOP protocol rely on.

Punishing people for making their own decisions is not the answer, just give a bigger reward to those who contribute more.

May peace be with you.

1 Like

First of all, I agree with cobie’s point( of view

  1. op is a token that can be circulated. Good liquidity is needed in the secondary market. A market without liquidity would be catastrophic for op. Good liquidity comes from a lot of buying and a lot of selling. So there must be sellers.
  2. The people we should punish are the ones who go through the contract to claim the airdrop (wallet address). Their actions are causing panic in the community.
  3. The team should not be overly concerned about the price of op. It should focus on the governance of the op system.
  4. op governance is still in the early days. The team’s view is crucial to op development The team should be careful what they say.
  5. the size of the op airdrop is unprecedented. more than 200,000 wallet addresses, but this is does not mean that there are 200,000 or so real people, right? It’s too normal for each person to have a few wallet addresses. Although let’s do a witch exclusion. But only a portion of the exclusion.
  6. what the op community needs is dynamic growth. There are new people entering the op ecosystem and old people exiting the op ecosystem. As long as the amount of entry is greater than the amount of exit, it proves that the op ecosystem is growing, right?

agreed but i would make some changes:
if someone sold 50% or less and is active in governance i would not exclude them.
governance is more important than hodl in my eyes.

i am not talking about me. proof-of-talk: space.eth

As many other replies have pointed out, it is quite a drastic step to make all sellers ineligible for future airdrops.

I believe a balanced view can be achieved in line with the suggestion by @polynya where long term holders become eligible for a multiplier.

If its Optimism’s goal that tokens need cannot be sold, then they could have issued soul-bound NFTs instead of tokens. On the contrary, Optimism has chosen to go with 2 tier governance model - the Optimism Citizen’s House will comprise of members who can vote on governance but cannot sell their NFTs, while the Token House members will be free to do what they want with their tokens.

This creates a liquid market for Optimism tokens.

Also one of the major goals for Optimism Collective is to fund public goods. Projects in the sphere can be funded properly only if they are able to sell their tokens. For example, let us say Optimism Collective funds a Optimism Analytics Dashboard with 100,000 OP tokens. For the project to benefit from the funding, they will need to pay for expenses, pay for employees etc with these OP tokens. This will invariably involve selling a portion of OP tokens.

Allowing people to sell their OP tokens without any artificially imposed “hodl mode” creates a free market for the tokens, which can be beneficial for the project.


I would rather incentivize OP-hodlers and especially to consider the following two categories for the airdrop #2:

  1. LP-providers
  2. Snapshot governance votes

These two categories are crucial for the ecosystem (Liquidity providers and governance participants) because they show “skin in the game”

OP … I think you bring up some really good points. I guess the crux of the question is “Why reward anyone that just is here to dump the airdrop and move on”. But i do have to agree with @Vikram here that we would not be setting the best of examples if we start to exclude accounts on the basis of their behavious with the initial airdrop.
I think a more constructive outlook would be to actually explore locked airdrops after a certain size. I think if larger accounts get their share but have a vesting and release could be accelerated based on net positive contribution, this would actually encrourage people to participate and may be even stay even after thier tokens are unlocked. Just some food for thought!

nice comment, this need to be a free market, and mechanism design need to be done before the token launch. I just don’t understand the user who created this thread, what is the point of restrictions?

hey friends. totally agree that dumping should disqualify wallet from future drops and think the idea of linking together with other protocols to develop a list of dumpers as well as a list of active participants who show up would be really valuable. side note… We are looking at building a list of vc who tend to dump at initial offering as another helpful tool.

US tax law is not conducive to this. We have to pay taxes on these airdrops when we receive them. I really need to be able to sell off a portion of them to cover my taxes. I actually have to pay the government to participate in these communities so these tokens are not exactly free.
I have held on to community tokens before and the price is high when they are airdropped. I cashed out ETH in order to pay the taxes and now the token is worth 10% of what it was before.
I wish the IRS treated these tokens as only taxable when sold so I could hold on to them. I prefer DAOs that use NFTs for governance because of this.

1 Like

I was surprised and grateful for the air drop from op. I felt good about the proposal. Although I had to sell my op, because I was overwhelmed by foreign debt, debt collectors called again and again, I almost thought I could not bear it, it was op who saved me, I very grateful to op. Although I already sold op, but it does not mean that I do not care about the future development of op.

1 Like

I agree with this proposal 100%

Whether a user gets the second round of airdrops has nothing to do with whether he sells the tokens of the first round of airdrops, only whether he participates in project governance.

I think the problem with awarding for participation in governance is that it is an incredibly difficult metric to get right. If you measure comments here then it just encourages low-content noise. If you measure snapshot votes then it encourages people to vote on issues that they may not understand or care about, just to get their numbers up.

Totally agree with you

I would say that sold is the key phrase here. I had a wallet that was compromised and qualified for the airdrop. I was unable to delegate those OP tokens from that wallet, but sent them to a different wallet that did delegate. My guess is that I’m not alone in this situation, or the situation of people receiving multiple airdrops and then consolidating into one wallet to delegate. I know multiple wallets is a slippery slope, people airdrop farming and such, but if someone qualified for the airdrop on two or three wallets and then consolidated, I do not see that as airdrop farming.

Sincere guy, worthy of praise!
Always laugh, good luck will come naturally!
Let’s work together to contribute our modest efforts to the construction of the optimistic network.