I agree partly.
I think the users who sold part of the initial OP airdrop（not sold all of it ）is ok. 
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.
2 Likes
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.
I disagree.
First, the airdropped token is a reward for those who have contributed positively to Web3. It does not make sense to reward an individual, only to penalize them if they profit from the reward. Rather than penalizing these individuals, it makes more sense to reevaluate the reward criteria’s effectiveness in targeting an audience with a higher likelihood of constructive participation. Or provide better incentives to entice these people to hold (but then again, why would we want “mercenary actors” to hold our token?)
Second, it is impossible to determine an individual’s motives. There are many reasons one might “dump” OP after they claim it aside from it being a mercenary act. Here are just a few examples that have been mentioned in this discussion:
- Finances are tight and the individual needs the funds for whatever reason - e.g. to pay rent
- The individual wholeheartedly supports Optimism and sees an opportunity to sell high and buy low to accumulate more tokens and have greater participation weight in the community
- To provide liquidity to the platform in benefit of the platform
Only staking operation get governance power maybe a good idea!
agree. It’s a marathon not a sprint. let more and more supporters, All inclusive.
1 Like
I don’t agree with this approach of identifying airdrop sellers and blame them publicly. This looks like modern witch hunting. Everyone who received the airdrop should have the right to do with it whatever he/she wants. Instead I would suggest to reward hodlers of the airdrop (=everyone who didn’t sell his/her whole stash) and include this support as one of the criterias for future airdrops
if this proposal pass i will never touch optimism again and i will dump all my tokens.
Ser, we wont let you down.
1 Like
This is quite a dicey issue, personally, i have not bothered selling my $OP tokens, but one should not be punished for selling, it could be to solve a problem or reinvest went they feel the price has bottomed. Crypto actually tries to bring about decentralization (without such persons selling their $OP, there would have been no $OP available for buy). Everyo
I think this largely ignores market forces and the speculative mechanics of an airdrop. Airdrops effectively act as a paid cost for growth that is spent in equity instead of in cash.
Perhaps in 2020 it was reasonable to say that they were not, since the idea of retrospective airdrops were quite novel, and users did not have reasonable expectation of a future airdrop in exchange for usage.
But in 2022, users are aware they will become owners of a protocol by using the protocol. An impending airdrop juices metrics (such as DAUs) which in turn increases the adoption and the valuation of Optimism. And there are good market examples of a bad, exclusionary airdrop killing user metrics (since speculo-users are now dissuaded, and any excluded real users are also dissuaded).
It’s similar to a paid referral program – sign up to this product and get $100 free usage. Except it is paid in equity instead of cash or discounts.
Now, if you believe that it is really a distribution of governance responsibilities and in no way a paid growth mechanic, then the path forward is very simple. If you want to only airdrop governance responsibilities to those that might want it, then you can issue a non-transferrable token with governance rights. Those that do not want to use it can simply ignore it, and those that do can vote with the governance rights they have earned.
But that is not the choice Optimism made, because they know that such a decision would cause many users to stop using Optimism. So, I do not buy the argument that the purpose of the airdrop was solely to deliver governance responsibility, when the execution (a transferable token given primarily based on usage and repeated usage) is far from the ideal option if that were the case.
Anyway, even if it were the case that this was solely intended as a governance (non-financial) distribution… then selling is still not even bad. Sellers are also helping transfer voting power into the hands of those likely to use it, too. The coins that would be ignored end up in the hands of people who actually want them. Don’t see how that is a bad thing.
Plus, just because you sold in the past, does not mean you will sell in the future. People’s situations change a lot and Optimism can change a lot. Being excluded from all future governance rights because you sold in 2022 seems silly very quickly as Optimism changes and time passes.
7 Likes
I think you’re misunderstanding, nothing here relates to blocking new users, that would of course be an even worse idea than blacklisting sellers, and I don’t think anyone has proposed it!
Firstly, just for clarity, I do completely agree with this:
I would vote against the proposal to backlist users from future airdrops if it ever came up.
However…
Your argument seems to boil down to the idea that despite the claim that the primary reason for the token is governance, you just know that it’s primary purpose is really to stimulate growth.
If that were the case then why would so much of the allocation of Airdrop One have gone to activities that don’t in any way relate to the use of Optimism. Out of the 6 categories you could get 4 of them without having touched the rollup… how does participating in the BanklessDAO’s governance or donating to The Daily Gwei’s Gitcoin funding round affect growth of Optimism? Doesn’t is seem plausible that these criteria were chosen specifically because they are likely to correlate to users more likely than average to participate in Optimism’s vision?
If they wanted to optimimze for attracting growth then surely it would have made a lot more sense to airdrop to users of mainnet dApps like UniSwap and Synthetix that are also available on Optimism, these are users who would very easily be convinced to start using optimism and are likely to stay due to the much cheaper fees than they are used to.
I think you’re so used to the cynical behavior of many projects in crypto that you’re making a category error and assuming that all token airdrops must fit into the same simple motivation.
Points like this I think should be irrelevant from the perspective of OP issuance. The issue isn’t a value judgement on why people sell or whether it’s ‘bad’ to do so. It’s just about the practical question of how to get more voting power into the hands of those who will use it than those who won’t. Of course you can give it to people who will just sell it and then those more interested in governance can just buy it… but that seems like an inefficient extra step.
[Edit - spelling]
estoy en acuerdo mas alla de la libertead que uno tenga aquellas personas que se despojaron el 100% de su posecion de op o el 50% calaramente no les interesa para nada la propuesta de governanza . Creo mas grave el caso de los que directamente vendieron todo
Lets look at the reality of the distribution:
- 92k eligible users received a total of ~71.3m OP
- 19k eligible repeat users received a total of ~32.3m OP
- 74k eligible users priced out of ETH received a total of ~30.2m OP
- 84k eligible governance participants received a total of ~22.7m OP
- 19k eligible multisig signers received a total of ~23.4m OP
- 24k eligible gitcoin donors received a total of ~13.3m OP
So users received ~130m and the other categories received ~59m in total. So, non-users received 30% and users received 70%.
Of the other categories, you can probably infer them all as governance participants. Gitcoin donors are probably seen as ecosystem supporters, and it’s good marketing/growth to align yourself with other public goods.
Multisig signers are likely developers, builders, or active community members. They’re probably governance-biased, but attracting developers and builders seems the most important motive here.
DAO voters are of course directly governance participants. In total, they received the smallest amount of any of the groups.
6 Likes
That’s a fair point, but it doesn’t really address why include those particular categories if the primary motivation wasn’t governance, and it certainly isn’t enough to convince me that the stated purpose of the token is false and the real reason is growth. Like I said above, there are many obviously more appropriate usergroups that could have been targeted if this was the case.
What if small fry’s who sold some OP, leveraged on AAVE and then bought back OP? Should they be banned from future airdrops?
1 Like