While funny, I disagree with this proposal due to several factors:
Dumping tokens is a form of governance and also distribution.
I think a better way is what Polynya proposed, which is a future bonus multiplier to those who did not dump their tokens.
off topic but, Id like to see a way where we could delegate our votes without actually claiming the token. Claiming the token is a taxable event. I may chose to wait until next calendar year to claim to but would like to delegate my votes now so they donât sit inactive until next year. Just a passing observation
fully agree with you sir
Couple short thoughts on this thread which has a bunch of great comments and debate:
1- Itâs not possible to determine between people who sold $OP to cover fees, a medical expense, or because they âdo not support Optimismâ. Much of the conversation on this thread can be summarized by attempts to understand why people commit certain actions and at the scale weâre operating at, itâs not possible to determine without significant time investment and trade off (which is not worth the opportunity cost in my opinion).
2- I believe that ideally, airdrops shouldnât function punitively, but rather be positive-sum. I am lukewarm on the idea of providing a âmultipleâ for those who held $OP, I think the main mechanisms should be closer to the heart of the vision (impact = profit), simply holding a token is not impact. On the livestream last night when asked about what to do about qualifying for Airdrop #2 @karl simply stated: âbe a good personâ or something to that effect, big fan of that.
3- In my opinion there are (more) and better options for rewarding positive sum behavior in the community (using Optimism, participating in governance, supporting public goods, building new things)
Sir I was just given a 5 figure tax liability I have to sell some.
totally agreed with that !
This post is a total trash⌠Holders of token have a 100% right and control over their tokens and Can do as they wish⌠So to me itâs not big deal some people sold off⌠There must always be sellers and buyersâŚ
I agree with you, This is a great idea.
its very hard to say to ban these type of address , but op team can do one think vest token for long time its simple method to do ,
This proposal is inspiring. Another one has been added to the forum based on this one, it goes even further: Extended ineligibility for future airdrops
So I bridged more Eth to Optimism in order have enough funds to add my OP to a UNI pool.
If OP increases in price significantly and I go out of range I will have effectively sold my OP, yet I would have contributed to Optimism with added liquidity.
Would I get blacklisted?
I donât like it
I agree with you dude!
I am in favour of this proposal
Totally agree with you.
Making airdrops ineligible for sellers may deter future usage/users, with that being said, creating slashing mechanisms for certain tiers of Initial Sales (e.g. slashing based on 25%, 50%, 75% of Gov. Token sold or other arbitrary %'s) may be quite effective and offer an incentive to hold & participate.
Users will inherently sell/distribute tokens to provide for Liquidity Pools and Profits (not all users have much capital in general for Defi, me included, but wish to participate in these protocols regardless to some degree, but their only way to continue participating would be allocating some degree of profit taking). Remember, some average salaries worldwide are <500 USD monthly, and most goes to rent, electricity, water, etc. Defi is a luxury to many communities worldwide; Average Indian Salary per month
I am a user who, for instance, sells/distributes for altruistically distributing between new users within my community in Latin Am whom are affected by the aforementioned information above.
I think slashing future Phases of OP drops based on Snapshots reviewing A) Phase Distributions + Holding Periods(to deter VCâs like a16s,3ac, from accumulating possibly low-priced tokens and gaining governance from future drops) B) Arbitrary Sale % Limits (mentioned in 1st paragraph) and possibly C) Snapshot of current holdings in certain wallets (we shouldnât also negate new users whom werenât included in airdrops whom wish to buy in to the governance model. With that being said, newer users need to be vetted diligently via On-Chain analysis (e.g. DAO Voting Participation + Forum Participation, holding periods, Repeat User Metrics, Dates of Usage, Gitcoin Donations, analysis on other chains)
I also suggest Hands on Education (videos, weekly training/all hands meetings) on governance for new users/seasoned users to teach how holding/participating in Gov Voting are incentives in the long run. (e.g. education on how liquidity works, MCAP, mechanisms behind staking pools, token delegation, etc)
Great community & Drop btw; Hope these opinions help to some degree.
Intension is good and in favor of community but airdrop is the responsibility given to certain people and I believe it is people choice to take it or not. In long term price will reflect and true user of optimism should not worry about token price. Price is directly proportional to use-case and in long term with such great and visionary community, why worry about price?..but what we can do for 2.0 is put forward such criteria where these dumpers and Sybils should receive none or least reward. Real and active user of optimism should be rewarded.
For the starters people who claimed from the backend via making smart contract should be banned for any airdrops(not who claimed from frontend when testing was being done), rewards of op and itâs ecosystem. They are true moths of the ecosystem.
I think this is a slippery slope. If you live in the USA, you are liable for income tax on airdrops that have a trading market (which optimism did right after it dropped). As such, I always sell a portion of my airdrops to set aside for taxes.
Punishing individuals for doing so is irresponsible and also will discourage usage of the rollup. There may be individuals who sold with hopes of buying back lower and punishing them will drive them to other L2s/L1s. If a system is put into place to find true mercenary selling (selling entire airdrop AND bridging off the network), imo those are the only ones that should meet punishment.
Not only do I disagree with this proposal, I think those who make such proposals should be run out of the web3 space completely. Their goal is to control how others behave, which is antithetical to decentralized governance. Price discovery for any asset happens because people buy and sell assets, and this is also a very critical part of any market.
I donât agree with this. The purpose of $OP is for governance, the amount you can sell the token is not the main point of the token. If anything, dumping early allows the coin to fall into the hands of the folks that believe in $OP. What should really count is if you actually used your $OP to vote. As long as someone voted, it shouldnât matter how many times they sold and rebought.
I canât 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 donât 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 itâs 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.