Let’s talk about terrible launch the project had! Many afraid of loosing their money in which they had plan for. This is reward for being a user of a platform and anyone can decide when to sell.
Me, myself if the project did started more rationally I would stake and LP mine! But the team instead of explaining what they did, were threatening users who were complaining…
This doesn’t really make sense.
At some price $P, people will individually want $OP at some amount Q.
The supply of $OP doesn’t change. The % of supply held by each HODLer doesn’t change.
In order to sell, someone has to buy. Here, AMM liquidity providers are agreeing to buy.
As the price falls, some amount of people who believe in $OP will buy it. If $OP’s fully diluted value is too high, the market will reprice it. Repricing isn’t a bad thing. It lets people get accurate market information on expectation’s of $OP’s success.
Making some people ineligible for future airdrops is just transferring their $OP to other people who are eligible. In fact, it does so at a price of $0. So it removes the ability for $OP supporters to signal support through purchasing $OP.
If you want $OP and support it - buy it!
Can/should $OP tweak future airdrops? Sure. But it doesn’t need to be vindictive. Just reward the behavior you want: using optimism. If I sell my $OP because it has no revenue mechanism or doesn’t fit my risk profile - but then I use the L2 can you really call me negative-sum? Would you really want to exclude me from future airdrops for being a user + seller?
If anything people who don’t claim are worse than people who claim & sell. At least claim & sellers are putting $OP into circulation so that fans can buy it. I would be more worried about people holding $OP and doing nothing: not using the L2, not delegating, just restricting its velocity.
The economic theory on this is clear. The market will set a price, people will own it at whatever prices they are comfortable, and Optimism will be valued based on its perception of success. Who cares about the price anyway, just use the token, participate in governance, and use the chain.
5 Likes
Totally agree with you!
That’s an absurd proposition
People selling their governance tokens isn’t a “net loss” for Optimism, the sold tokens go into the hands of more involved people (since they are ready to buy the tokens) so if any thing it’s a net benefit.
People are free to do what they want with their tokens, that’s the whole point of designing governance this way
1 Like
Please make this happen.
I totally agree with this proposal.
Loyalty is everything, that needs to be understood. This is a nascent industry and quick-profit mercenaries should be purged.
Totally agreed with you 
Since the responsibility of the team’s unsuccessful claim process belongs to the users, the team that cannot fix even a simple code error should first apologize and take charge of the mistake…If you can’t manage such a simple process, it is inevitable that you will encounter a big hack soon.Note: I am a person who normally completes the claim process.
we have 2 types of sellers
-
- sell all amount
-
- sell some of his amount
► to much seller 2.A type
- is poor user who sell because his portfolio is maybe lower than his airdrop ( many user from india/africa/middle america) is not very god idea delisting this type user from next airdrop if they not sell more than 75/50/30??? %
if this user stay on the network with 50%(30/75 ? idk) of amount airdrop is trustworthy and contributing into decentralization network
► im not one of poor country btw, we need find good ration between hold/sell 25/50/75/ % ???
▼ some people who dont sell waiting for next airdrop because they want more usd than they geted
( maybe pople from rich country can risk it )
What if user swaps OP tokens and then buys at lower price? WTF is this talk about? Are you communist?
1 Like
Hey everyone! Please remember that anyone can make a proposal on this forum, this proposal was not created by someone at the Optimism Foundation or OP Labs PBC, and that a proposal does not represent any sort of binding commitment to actually carry out an action. Carry on!
2 Likes
For a variety of reasons, op this airdrop has been a very bad experience, the scientists grabbed claim ,to mention the coin is late to account.
The project has become a user, the failure of the user, at this time should be more from the user’s point of view.
At present, the users who can get airdrop are early contributors, no matter what kind of degree he is optimistic about op, if they do not go to use op, I believe op is not so easy to get financing, the team development progress is also unlikely to be so fast.
For users to receive airdrops and then sell them, this should be a very normal form of behavior, just like when a company has financing or goes public, isn’t it normal for early shareholders to want to share the dividends?
So we should consider what value we can have by holding the coins, and enhance the governance function of the tokens out. Users who are really optimistic will naturally choose to keep their tokens and continue to participate. The one-size-fits-all approach is too hasty.
1 Like
Don’t sell it, keep it for the New Year?
I agree with this proposal. Also, in future I suggest you don’t preannounce your airdrops.
这是一个好主意，应该在 Velo discord 中提出。
I do not agree with this proposal.
Punitive and exclusive proposals bring bad publicity to the project.
2 Likes
It would just ensure people to hedge against price downtrend through perpetual. This would intervention the price discovery which we should allow it organically somehow. With that said, if we go this way, once the airdrop #2 is allocated, it would be dumped. I do not see the benefit of this towards OP governance in the long run. It does not incentivize people to participate more in governance.
While I agree with the spirit of 0xJohn’s argument, I also agree with many of the replies pointing out that some users may have swapped some/all of their tokens for good reasons.
I would suggest a less severe form of future airdrop penalization, one that takes into account active on-chain use. Something like:
- -100% future airdrop penalty for any user who has sold their OP allocation, bridges off-chain, and has no significant onchain activity on Optimism after that.
- -50% future airdrop penalty for any user who has sold their OP allocation, bridges the value of that sale off-chain but continues to use the Optimism network in a significant fashion.
- No future airdrop penalties for users who sold their OP allocation but did not bridge the value out and continue to actively use the network.
The only issue with this methodology is that it can be obviously be gamed if known in advance, but this is just an idea off the top of my head. The main point is, limit the punishment for people who are active Optimism users, maximize the punishment for those who dumped their allocation and left.
2 Likes
kind of agree but let’s focus more on rewarding the holders/diamond hands!!!
2 Likes
Totally agreed with you, this is the best option.
i think its better with people which claimed first before claim button live should ban for future airdrop