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
what if i sent token to CEX and sell at ATH
then buyback when it hit the lowest price, and then i sent all OP back with more amount.
does this consideration “sold” and become ineligible too?
The airdrop was given to them, and it is their freedom to choose to sell, isn’t it? Especially now that the US dollar is raising interest rates, it is inevitable to have concerns about the market. However, why don’t we have a clearer plan for the future development of the ecology and let people know that it is better to hold it than to sell it?
1 Like
Freedom to buy and sell!
It is suggested that voting rights should be held for more than six months instead.
1 Like
Totally agree with you
1 Like
Support your idea. But extremes are not supported.
We’re not against those dumping guys, we’re just against those who create price waterfalls through technology-first speed dumping. Those guys are evil.
My idea is:
The op project team takes a snapshot at a certain block height and directly blacklists those guys. #2 #3 #4 airdrops are canceled and assigned to holding users.
or
OP project team timestamp to snapshot, guy after timestamp has no problem dumping his token, but guy before that, blacklisted. Cancel #2 #3 #4 airdrop and distribute to other users. (The project party can choose the last statement of the official twitter, fix the problem as the timestamp, and dump the token before that #2 #3 #4 airdrop. In fact, I saw that the OP project party has been saying on the official twitter before Please wait until the problem is fixed. Since the project side has indicated that it is not a good time to claim, why do those guys choose to stand on the opposite side of the project side? Do they have any contribution to the project?)
Reason: When the OP project team was still trying to fix it, those guys dug graves for the project side, this guy is evil and despicable! (Of course, you have the right to control your tokens, but when everyone is working hard for the op, you hit the op hard and spread negative remarks, causing the $op price to freeze, we can’t tolerate this at all Behavior)
We can’t use words to check whether a person is morally friendly, but we can check those guys with proposals and institutions.
This will be a mistake. People will just change their wallets. And we will lose these people. Perhaps they intend to buy optimism cheaper. Guys this is stupid.
1 Like
be active on optimism, that’s it. best to use protocols that are likely to launch a token themselves (2 in 1). check out this guy’s airdrop strategies on twitter (@OlimpioCrypto) 
i agree as welll those who manipulate and get airdrop should be punished
1 Like
can’t understand how you have to dump the entire 30k-50k $ airdrop but you are absolutely right. stupid idea to want to exclude these people. for most of them it will also be a tax event. so they have to look not to make any debts in the future because of the airdrop. by the way, didn’t sell a single OP. it’s tax free after 1 year. unfortunately i didn’t get 30-50k $ either. how do you get that much? provide millions of dollars liquidity for months? these people will never be interested in governance but they are important too.
100 % agree, these Djs are not healthy to the eco system
On the other hand those addresses helped people who bought them to load up on OP 
1 Like
Agree with these takes. The arguments presented by OP are self-defeating and counter-productive.
The OP ignores the massive awareness campaign this brought not only to Optimism but to bridges and governance participation and so forth. And with it a tail of educational and usage network effects.
For example, the ‘alpha’ channel discussions amongst NFT natives was quite telling: “is this Optimism thing legit?”, “what is Optimism, is it on ETH?”, “how do i bridge and what bridge should i use”, “how do i swap? …what is uniswap”, “wait, you got more because you [participated in governance]”, “are there NFTs there?”, “gas is how much?!”, and so forth.
Little by little people start to figure it out: knowledge and participation pays. And little by little awareness and usage grows and network effects start to take hold. So when that easy-sauce Coinbase bridge appears, they’ll already know what Optimism is. And, heck, they might even come back and tell their frens to buy your bags.
Disclosure: I am an airdrop seller. Almost every time. But the non-vampires come from early participation in networks or projects that I continue to use. Pre and post-drop I’m engaging NFT degens and others, answering their questions and of course giving them my opinion. But, according to OP, I am a zero contribution account. Begs the question: is this post real or a figment of your imagination?
I agree with this proposal cauz dumpers are dump our OP and go back to ETH Mainnet after selling
this proposal is best i think 
+1 for bonuses for those that hold & delegate, but not exclusions for sellers.
As others have pointed out, airdrops have two purposes:
- Acquire users & activity.
- Distribute governance power.
There will be users of Optimism who do not want to participate in governance. As long as the goals of the airdrop remain as the above, sellers should not be excluded.
Given the two house system of Optimism, it is actually better suited to include sellers in future airdrops as not all governance decisions will be made through token voting and citizenship can have more stringent requirements and exclusions.
3 Likes
Every chain needs txns for its statistics. like selling.
Those that partially sold should still be eligible but those that sold everything should lose eligibility IMO
1 Like
I really can’t disagree more with this. If people are “free to do what they want” then there should be no “but” that comes after that statement. Punishing people for making a personal choice doesn’t seem to go well with the values of the community.
Should we examine each individual’s choice for why they participate in crypto to begin with? Examine why each individual interacts with apps on Optimism and then decide whether their motivations are pure or not? Should I also be banned because I sold 200 of my 7500 OP to buy an NFT (on Optimism by the way)?
OP will eventually make its way to the people who want to participate in governance and contribute meaningfully to the community. If we start punishing people or banning them for wanting to improve their financial situation then we have taken a moral wrong turn. If Optimism is about distributing punishment then I might need to leave.
6 Likes
Well. This is decentralization isn’t it?
You certainly do not expect everyone to hodl, it always happen that weak hands sell and interested people buy
Plus some simply traded it and bought back, it’s obvious there was going to be an initial dump because of the airdrop.
Others sold part to add to liquidity. There’s so many scenarios to examine
This argument won’t be the best in the long run for the ecosystem. Let price appreciation be the punishment for them
Let’s focus on the bright side
5 Likes
Also coins/tokens needs volume.