Such an idea is respected and perfect!
I had anticipated this suggestion coming up and had suggested to my friend that we hedge short.
I am 100% against this proposal.
It has no practical effect.
What we really need to do is to standardize the airdrop index in the future and increase the percentage of airdrops that go to those who really contribute to optimism.
2 Likes
There are people who lose money in the crypto market and need liquidity.
So they had to sell it. But you will try to rationalize it for only one group of airdrops. It was very selfish.
1 Like
Totally agree with you
I totally disagree. The market is free, and it can only be dynamic when it flows.
1 Like
I donât agree that the freedom to buy and sell is a healthy economic system. and I hope this is an inclusive community
3 Likes
I donât agree with this. If you force some people out in this way, it will only accumulate negativity, and I still think itâs always right to get things done and not focus on the surface
3 Likes
No
This is market behavior, and as long as the token has the property of being exchangeable, dump is bound to happen.
But you have to realize that Person A sells his initial token and Person B gets his initial token at the same time. Person B could be a potential contributor who notices OP token in the market and becomes interested in OP community governance.
If you want to punish dumpers by whether they sell token or not, this dimension is hard to define. Time to sell? Percentage of sale?
On the flip side, why should we care about the token price in the first few days when we are all long runners? Will this have a big negative impact on the community? Even if the price goes to zero, it doesnât matter. Look, there were many dumper who sold on the first day when the ETH token was launched, and of course they all regretted it. Stay optimistic.
My point is that if you want to avoid speculation, the best way is not to PUNISH people who sell on day 1, but to reward people who continue to hold (e.g. RSS3âs second airdrop for those who continue to hold the initial airdrop)
4 Likes
I agree that we should reward those who hodl their initial airdrop, but I think we should avoid punitive punishment for those who decided to sell early. There are many reasons to sell, from just wanting to dump, to wanting to recover costs, LP, needing some $, etc. Some of these people who sold early may become valuable community members. Instead, have criteria for future airdrops that reward the behaviors we would like to see. For example:
- Hodlers - wallets who never sold, get some portion of future airdrop. and/or
- Investors - those who own an equal amount or more than their initial allocation get a portion of the airdrop. and/or
- Partial investors - those who own 50% or greater of the initial token allocation get a portion of the airdrop.
Those who dumped hard and left do not get to participate in those criteria, but it always leaves the door open.
1 Like
There is no need for this. Before the next round of airdrop snapshots, we just need to require accounts to hold a certain amount of opcoins in addition to the normal requirements for interactions, contributions, etc. Because if we completely restrict the free trading of opcoins, the market loses its heat, which is also very bad for the project itself.
1 Like
Agree with this. Rather than punish people who sold day one letâs incentivize people to hold airdrop 2 by building OP into a great platform
1 Like
yâall are foookin dumb, have you guys never sold a single token if your life? have fun staying poor being too afraid to click the red button. How does it feel knowing as long as you keep this mentality you will be dumped on
Completely disagree. People have options, penalization will only serve to drive people off the platform and onto Arbitrum, ZKSync and Starknet
I know itâs not a zero sum game but network effects matter.
Many may not care about governance, but THEY ARE STILL USERS!! OP needs users and penalizing them for ânot doing the right thingâ is counter productive to growing the ecosystem
As much as u want to help the community. Answer is not based on nothing fundamental but mostly emotions. We can present the fact here 
-
users entitled to their allocation can trade them freely, that is not to anyone to tell them what to do with their allocation, applying restrictive behavior is non sense.
-
you could apply this restrictive behavior to wallet who sneak into the testnet and sold early, but no pre requesite rules were made to pass such a proposal and exclude identified sybil wallets is also an option.
-
the alternative is to use voting which require $OP gov token to vote with a snapshot made early in the 24h of trading, so we can use it for future airdrop.
-
selling and buying it what make a token circulating and trading which is the main purpose. We canât blame someone selling and be mad because of a price drop this is purely based on emotions.
-next airdrop should be equally distributed and not solely based on the earlier allocation as this will make room for better reward, as long as user is a repeat user, voter.
While I agree with the sentiment, I suggest to treat this carefully. For already mentioned reasons by others, the reasons may differ and we shouldnât exclude people who sell.
The one way how this can be deal with is to a time-weighted coefficient of tokens held and tokens delegated to governance, eg.
For 2nd airdrop:
- Time since 1st airdrop: 300 days
- Number of tokens held: 200 during 150 days
- Number of tokens delegated: 100 during 100 days
Next airdrop: time-weighted tokens held * K1 + time-weighed tokens delegated * K2
K1 = coefficient 1 (smaller)
K2 = coefficient 2 (higher)
This would flush out sellers while it would reward long-term holders and long-term holders who delegated governance.
This may be non-trivial to calculate, but OP can create a public bounty to implement this with configurable parameters.
3 Likes
This is more in line with the way I say it. In my view wallets that didnât sell and delegated should get a bonus in the next round, wallets that insta-dumped should have a multiplier that reduces their total distribution.
2 Likes
This is so obviously counter productive for OP should we punish HOP, RUBICON and all the other protocols if their $OP allocation is dumped by LP farmers?
Not everyone is interested in governance
This is a slippery slope. I donât think this will benefit the ecosystem long term. There will always be people that will try to game the system but rather than trying to exclude them we should try to figure out how to keep them around. i.e. incentives that will encourage depositing into LP, clear communication on second airdrop not being given to dumpooors, etc. In the end if they want to dump let them dump, it is a democratic process after all, we canât become emotionnally attached because the governance token has a value that corresponds to real life dollars that may or may not be life changing money for some.
1 Like
Oh I would completely disagree with this proposal and heres why:
If you really wanted to restrict the selling of your token from launch then using a vested lock cycle would have been a clearer choice. Retroactively banning people for selling a token is borderline idiocracy.
Itâs a slippery slope making proposals that exclude people for doing X action, because it could set an unwanted precedent of banning and restricting users for all kinds of so called âharmful actionsâ. Letâs not forget that a governance token is SUPPOSED to be transferable so that other people have the right to become governance voters.
If the OP team really are displeased with people selling their token, then why were all the biggest exchanges ready to start selling OP from day 0?
I would wager that a huge chunk of people nodding to this proposal are just salty individuals who wanted to sell early but the token dumped before they even got theirs.
How did some get theirs over others? This was because OP team were testing in production, allowing people to use their frontend for a split second AND because there were not any locks or controls setup on the claim contract so they couldnât stop people from interacting with the contract directly.
And before you lump those early claimer people into the âsybil attackerâ or âairdrop hunterâ crowd, maybe you should all go and take a hard look at what Sybil attacks even are, because itâs obvious that a lot of you have no clue.
People have been interacting with smart contracts directly AND/OR via scripting since day 1, thatâs kind of the point of programmable money! That doesnât make you a âsybil attackerâ!
All in all, I will be voting against this proposal if it ever goes that far, and if it passes, I will be passing on OP as it will mean that OP is compromised by group think.
4 Likes
i am disagree
we are using some tokens for dao and sold other
whats wrong with it ?!
1 Like