Every holder is important to the ecosystem and an active governance. Thus a time calculation would make sense: the longer one holds OP, the more rewards he should receive for airdrop round #2
Punishing someone because he sold is not democratic
2 Likes
I donât fully agree to this.
1 Like
Itâs pretty painful to watch it happen over and over again but the unfortunate part is that the whales always get rewarded for doing this type of behavior. Itâs become sort of the playbook of airdrops to instantly dump as fast as you can and never look back.
I really like the idea of either adjusting the vesting or changing the way these wallets get to interact with the ecosystem though as the instadump is nothing more then a way for them to extract more value for themselves.
That being said there has to be a better approach then to just cut someone off completely. As other posters have said perhaps the longer you hold the more value you get or some mechanism like this is needed.
1 Like
Ya they only want get free money fast, dont even care about what optimism do
agree ,itâs reasonable
1 Like
Totally agree with you
The hand that gives is always greater than the hand that receives.
I am for the collective.
My action must be for the greater good of the collective.
Disagree, I sold some tokens, because of the situation this year, everyoneâs economic situation is different, I need to sell some tokens in exchange for cash to maintain the family, but I sell tokens does not mean that I am not against the OP After paying attention and using it again, I think that only when the life of the token holder is improved, will the holder have a feedback mentality for the token, and will interact and interact in a better state in the following days. Continue to contribute
3 Likes
and the address in question will be blocked from all airdrops related to arbitrum, uniswap, optimism for future airdrops
The rules should be defined first, you cannot now exclude those who have sold for a thousand reasons. If you wanted people not to sell, you had to apply a block, a kind of vesting. For example, I suggest a method similar to that of EVMOS, which allows you to run the claim only after performing specific operations. I leave here the link of the article as food for thought for the next airdrops. Claiming your Evmos Rektdrop. The Official Rektdrop Guide | by Tharsis | Evmos | Apr, 2022 | Medium
1 Like
It is suggested that everyone should focus more on how to promote the development of the project. The development prospects of the project are infinitely broad, so why limit the vision to the prevention of arbitrage? As long as arbitrageurs can bring good marketing effects to the project, they should be welcomed. For example, a scientist gets rich by interacting with hundreds of thousands of dollars in airdrops. This is a good marketing model!
1 Like
376 replies already so I doubt many people will see my thoughts on this but I must say, whilst I understand WHY this is suggested, I completely DISAGREE with it.
Reason 1 - Perception.
Optimism is not only competitng with other layer 2s on a technological basis but also on a narrative basis. The fact this is so devise and also has had a heavyweight from Crypto Twitter jump in and slam it in a satirical manner in Cobie shows how bad implementing this would be from a PR point of view.
Reason 2 - Freedom
Crypto was designed to set us free, in a free market people should be able to buy and sell whatever they like. Selling is still a legitimate economic activity that has brought value to Optimism. These users have chosen to sell for whatever reason, however whoâs to say they wonât buy back at some point. The airdrop was rewarding positive activity in both Ethereum and Optimism so these users have brought value and have the potential to bring further value to Optimism, putting up barriers when layer 2s are wanting to entice users seems counterproductive.
Reason 3 - Centralization Risks
We all want decentralization in Ethereum, and by blacklisting legitimate users who tick off criteria to be determined in the future because they decided to sell all/some of their first airdrop risks us seeing centralization within the $OP holders very early on.
I would not be adverse to a multiplier being applied for users who hodled if this was to be voted on, but to actively punish users who sold seems to me to be a very counterproductive measure as we try and grow the Optimism ecosystem.
4 Likes
i gues they should be punished in some way but excluding them entirely drives them away from the network altogether
1 Like
Makes no sense. People have different liquidity.
If looking to direct follow on liquidity to engaged participants that should be to those that have delegated their holdings and ideally participated here.
Agree. Reward stakers and long term investors.
You hava a valid point.
Selling all of the airdropped OP doesnât necessarily mean these wallets wont buy in back OP. They probably felt urgency to control other personal situations. Although there actions can be frowned at, it may be necessary for them.
Very much agreeďźbut not easy to check.
In my opinion, if you sell all of your airdrop amount you should be excluded from upcoming airdrops. Your next airdrop should be based on how much you held. If you sold half you should get half of the next airdrop. Like this, we can encourage chain usage to get future airdrops.
Partially agreed, but those who dumps the price are taking their own risk anyway