Totally agreed with you
I am wondering if there is a more nuanced position. It is often the case that people who have been a part of airdrops know you sell quickly and buy on the drop. I didn’t do this (I just put my share into liquidity). But I know there will be people who did because they know markets and to act as though they don’t care about optimism because they sold when they suspected it would drop for a buy back seems wrong. I don’t think that type of move is opposed to optimism ideal of flexibility. So if we were to penalize sellers I do think we should take into consideration addresses that bought back in (maybe an untold snapshot time frame that would be revealed at the second drop so as not to encourage half hearted buy backs.) I also don’t think we should penalize addressees that would have sold partial to provide liquidity (halfsies). I didn’t do this because I could afford the other half but I don’t think anyone should be penalised for providing liquidity. Someone who sells and remains empty of OP probably is the intended target, but even then there will be people who can’t afford not to sell in this market but still participate where they can. I think we need a nuanced proposal.
Totally agree and this is must!
Every point I read here make sense
We just need to make good decision that other project can emulate from in the future
To me taking profit is good but dumping is what I don’t encourage
Let’s consider flexibility i.e the ability to use your money the way you want but probably with a percentage measure if you really wish to be in the governance body.
Wholeheartedly agree with you. A balance approach is required and needed here. May not be right to punish genuine ecosystem users just because some airdrop hunters are dumping their tokens. In all honesty, i would rather have those hunters dump and go their way. Create other requirements to make it hard for them to get future airdrops. Set airdrop conditions to ensure that all those who gain from future airdrops participate in the ecosystem and its protocols, governance, etc. We need to grow the TVL and make the ecosystem one of the biggest L2s, if not the biggest. We cant marginalize genuine and potential players due the action of just few. A balanced approach is needed in my opinion
Make sens i’am 100% agree
I wouldn’t agree with this but I would rather suggest than the wallet transactions post Airdrop #1 could be used to filter out more sybil wallets. People sell for certain reasons, some could sell to buy back lower.
This is most agreable.
I have sold and rebought already several times, and I currently use at least 20 dapps within the optimism ecosystem regularly. Trading should not be penalized. Tokens are sold, and bought. Especially in highly active markets. Buying and selling OP should not be penalized.
Airdrop hunters that sell off and never interact again are another story.
I disagree (surprise surprise: I sold half of my airdrop). I was able to cash in $1500 which will help me pay for things I need (and want). Now I can spend less time earning more money and more time contributing to Optimism.
Let them get an airdrop just not nearly as much as people who did not sell. Reward the participants holders better than the rest.
I wouldn’t equate selling the airdrop to “not caring about Optimism”. Not everyone’s financial situation is the same.
I’d argue people initially dumping airdrops, suppressing price, is actually good for governance longterm. If you incentivize short-term holding - you get plenty of people who don’t care about active governance bag holding $OP for a few months. When airdrop is dumped and token price is suppressed - there is sufficient time and opportunity for $OP to accumulate in the hands of those who actually care about voting and long term success.
The goal of this proposal is to artificially hold up token price in the short-term, by incentivizing people who don’t care about Optimism to bag hold.
very valid points. Incentivize people who care about the longer term and let others who dont care about the ecosystem pack and get out. They wont contribute much to the ecosystem
I don’t quite agree with this - OP holders are entitled to have an opinion, and it’s perfectly fine if they sold. They may have sold for many reasons - a) they were just farming the airdrop [in which case they are still distributing the token], b) they think the price is too high and want to buy back lower, or c) they are selling to fund development on Optimism.
Someone who sold may still be committed to Optimism’s success.
What I’d support is a bonus multiplier for those who claimed, delegated and did not sell; also it’ll better inform mitigating more sophisticated sybils.
100%. discard all the farmers
Not everyone who sold initially is a farmer. Many are traders that buy back their tokens at a lower price for a profit.
One of the goals of the airdrop is to incentivize people to use the chain. Even if they plan to dump it is fine, because they have used optimism and if they liked the chain they will keep using it. If we exclude people who dumped new people might have less incentive to use the chain, which is not a good thing.
In addition, blacklisting people who sold early might harm the idea that OP should be a neutral token that doesn’t “discriminate” against certain groups. That might make the token less attractive for investors and other groups of people, and might result in loss of economic value. And its very important for the OP token to have high economic value to prevent governance attacks.
It is too extreme and not advisable. Users have spent time and money. In the WEB3 era, they grow together with the project, and finally receive airdrops. Users and project parties are equal.don’t do things like killing the donkey.
I intend to hold my tokens but do not agree that dumpers should be precluded from future airdrops for the following reasons: 1) Optimism is in control of what behaviors it chooses to reward in the future and if the dumpers also engage in the activity that Optimism subsequently deems to be worthy of an airdrop, they should not be penalized for taking a profit especially since you never know the personal circumstances of someone who dumped their tokens. 2) A liquid market is necessary and requiring hodling would inhibit liquidity and perhaps reward the dumpers because the price would jump. 3) If Optimism believes that any amount of selling is undesirable, they could create a vesting schedule for future airdrops and could have made a vesting schedule for this airdrop.
It’s an interesting nuance to blacklist a token holder that does not subsequently use optimism for some period of time.