I think punishing anyone for withdrawing 100% of h/er claimed OP if deserving. Considering your delegated your voting power to a delegate. What power does that delegate have of such a person to vote on governance proposals?
How does that bring positive growth to the project, i wonder. Economic situations not withstanding, plan to build with a project that just rewarded you with their token.
Vigorously disagree. You absolutely must to sell some in order to provide liquidity on Uniswap or other dApps. The mere act of selling some should not disqualify one from future airdrops. You could however make future airdrops continent on current holdings. So, someone who sold all would be disqualified because they have 0 balance. Someone who sold half and provided liquidity to the pair would still qualify.
I agree with John. If you sell the whole airdrop youāre not interested in the protocol. However that the people are selling a certain amount of tokens (like 10%) is ok (during a bear-market). I think it shouldnāt be a 0%, 100% decision. All people that sold more than 25% of the airdrop should become ineligible for future airdrops.
Thats not necessarily true. People could be interested in the protocol, but think the token is overvalued. Or they just need the money for personal reasons.
Hey, the reasoning on the Perception basis does not state whether or not banning the sellers is a good idea. I mean, you are saying that even if banning is the correct path here, no other L2 platform should do this because it would be bad PR. This is nonsense, Optimism should make an example by barring these wallets from receiving additional rewards even if this decision would potentially harm peopleās view of the collective.
For the Freedom argument, I would disagree with that on the design purpose of crypto. What crypto provides is the means to acquire a different political field. And it does this on the premises of decentralization and openness (of code, of the transactions etc.). It provides the means to detach people from the grasp of authoritarian organizations such as the state and corporations. What we should do with crypto is not to re-enact oppressive structures, and certainly not āfree marketā. On the contrary, we should use blockchain to utterly destroy them. There is no freedom when there is a āfree marketā in the conventional sense.
Yes, there is no guarantee that people would not buy back OP in the future, but it is the act of selling itself that is discussed here, not the peopleās intentions or inner thoughts or whatnot. Also, there is nothing keeping people from contributing to the collective even if they are banned from the airdrops.
For the concerns about Centralization Risks, It is not realistic to think that opting for the ban would compromise the collective to centralization by itself. Wallets under the risk of being banned are a very small fraction of airdrop receivers. Promoting decentralization should not mean allowing everybody to have equal ground regardless of their benefit or harm to Optimismās premises.
I donāt think thatās a good idea. Weāre looking for loyalty to optimism in the future, not immediate sales
If threads like this will have most activities, I will think about selling my OP. I know a lot of people who have sold OP but will continue to use Optimism, thatās their right and thereās probably a reason why the team didnāt put a vesting period on airdrop distribution. All of you who donāt mind selling OP, why blame the dumpers? Maybe you want to sell OP for a better price? How badly does it affect those who want to keep the OP and be active in the governance over protocol?
These listed ādumpersā are obviously public good funders, multi-sig signers, active governors, and Optimism users and did not deserve a āforum lynchā
We should cancel airdrops for anyone who has sold any type of token whatsoever in the past 6 months. Only holding should be allowed within optimism. If we could also block all IP addresses from accessing Optimism as well that have ever sold in the past six months, along with the wallet addresses.
It is likely that punishing these users for selling by not allowing them in airdrops will reach the same end result as blocking them but we should just be 100% sure.
All Optimism users should be mandated also to vote or delegate or be punished as well.
All protocols should only allow buying on optimism, and should be linked directly to bridges so the protocols only sell tokens directly from L1 or other L2ās.
Also slashing should be implemented as well for all sellers of all tokens.
We should definitely publicly post all wallet addresses who sell tokens to publicly ridicule them too. John has started this thankfully, so we need only add to the list. Good work.
Using protocols and being an active user of Optimism should count for nothing, ZERO.
It should be mandatory that any and all airdrops on Optimism have a TEN YEAR VESTING PERIOD. After the vesting period, tokens will be released to users, but they will have to sign a contract agreeing to drive a stake into their own beating heart if they consider selling, swapping, pooling, profiting, transferring to another wallet, wrapping, or bridging.
Protocols should be blacklisted for any type of rewards, as it is basically the same as selling for $0 dollars.
In fact, generally commerce in general involves someone selling something to obtain something else. Commerce should generally be banned and punished with airdrop blacklisting, slashing, ip blocking, wallet blocking, and stake driving.
Please, feel free to add more ways to punish, blacklist, stifle, chase off, block, hurt, cancel, destroy, decimate, eviscerate, ravage, annihilate, and decimate sellers. SELLERS will not be allowed here on Optimism, and we will let them know it.
We need to be EXTREMELY EXCLUSIVE here guys. That means EXCLUDING PEOPLE TO THE EXTREME. It is the only way to truly attract the people we want here.
It does not matter at all that we will discourage people who sold anything ever, even for a moment for profit and even 1 token because THESE PEOPLE are certainly one of the following:
-poor/ financially not good (we certainly want to punish the poor and oust them)
-traders
-poolers
-defi users
-recently rekt by the bear market
-uninterested
-scared of losing money
-needed money to put in optimism protocols
-sick and had medical bills
-dumpers
-in debt
-just a bad person
-dirty degens
-clean degens
-apes
-got scared when price dropped on launch
-didnāt see the available use cases appealing
-SUPER poor
-ādonāt believeā in voting
-thought it was āOKā to sell their personal tokens (note: they were wrong)
-had to deposit to stop a liquidation on an optimism protocol
-needed money to donate on gitcoin (donation is a form of selling for $0 and is condemned here)
-and just pure evil
STAND TOGETHER OPTIMISM COMMUNITY. Together we can clear out ANYONE WE DEEM UNWORTHY. Eventually we will be left with the select fewā¦ the proudā¦ the perfect holders. In 50 years when quantum computers have effectively depreciated the internet and 99.99% of the perfect holders have died of natural causes, staking, decimation, and general whatnot we will be left with one.
Sparkle
ONE PERFECT HOLDER
Sparkle
We should strive to be so EXCLUSIVE.
PUNISH people for making THE WRONG CHOICE. Selling is not allowed here. Get out of here sellers. You are not welcome on Optimism, and we will show you where it matters, financially and socially/publicly through ridicule.
Best so far and fully agreed on this! 100%
Makes sense! However, it is probably not the best to categorically deem those who dumped on the first day as airdrop mercenaries. Like you said, the tokens are to be used as they please and it wouldnāt be surprising that someone decides that they donāt fit in to the role of playing active governance. In that case we rather have those individuals āsellā their ārightsā to a group more interested in actively partaking in governance. I mean what us the point of dead beat governors? In that case, how do we assure that the people who ābuyā these coins are solely here for the purpose of the āgovernanceā.
Agreed with this, I had to sell 25% to take some profits, but kept the majority.
I would keep it simple and not get too caught up in what other wallets have done or will do.
If said wallets contributed to the ecosystem in any constructive way then they deserve a reward in my opinion.
Why would you remove the incentives to use and participate in the ecosystem (live and let live), especially at the early stages.
If some wallets dumped their OP tokens then let them, Iām sure if you didnāt dump youāll probably get a multiplier for the next airdrops.
Some people probably donāt have the time or understanding to participate in quality governance so they sell their tokens.
Also what if they sold their OP to provide liquidity, make transactions within Optimism or test out other dapps with funds provided from the OP airdrop! Even if they bridged their funds to another ecosystem who cares, that is what our buddies at HOP protocol rely on.
Punishing people for making their own decisions is not the answer, just give a bigger reward to those who contribute more.
May peace be with you.
First of all, I agree with cobieās pointļ¼https://gov.optimism.io/t/extended-ineligibility-for-future-airdrops/2249/58ļ¼ of view
agreed but i would make some changes:
if someone sold 50% or less and is active in governance i would not exclude them.
why?
governance is more important than hodl in my eyes.
i am not talking about me. proof-of-talk: space.eth
As many other replies have pointed out, it is quite a drastic step to make all sellers ineligible for future airdrops.
I believe a balanced view can be achieved in line with the suggestion by @polynya where long term holders become eligible for a multiplier.
If its Optimismās goal that tokens need cannot be sold, then they could have issued soul-bound NFTs instead of tokens. On the contrary, Optimism has chosen to go with 2 tier governance model - the Optimism Citizenās House will comprise of members who can vote on governance but cannot sell their NFTs, while the Token House members will be free to do what they want with their tokens.
This creates a liquid market for Optimism tokens.
Also one of the major goals for Optimism Collective is to fund public goods. Projects in the sphere can be funded properly only if they are able to sell their tokens. For example, let us say Optimism Collective funds a Optimism Analytics Dashboard with 100,000 OP tokens. For the project to benefit from the funding, they will need to pay for expenses, pay for employees etc with these OP tokens. This will invariably involve selling a portion of OP tokens.
Allowing people to sell their OP tokens without any artificially imposed āhodl modeā creates a free market for the tokens, which can be beneficial for the project.
I would rather incentivize OP-hodlers and especially to consider the following two categories for the airdrop #2:
These two categories are crucial for the ecosystem (Liquidity providers and governance participants) because they show āskin in the gameā
OP ā¦ I think you bring up some really good points. I guess the crux of the question is āWhy reward anyone that just is here to dump the airdrop and move onā. But i do have to agree with @Vikram here that we would not be setting the best of examples if we start to exclude accounts on the basis of their behavious with the initial airdrop.
I think a more constructive outlook would be to actually explore locked airdrops after a certain size. I think if larger accounts get their share but have a vesting and release could be accelerated based on net positive contribution, this would actually encrourage people to participate and may be even stay even after thier tokens are unlocked. Just some food for thought!
nice comment, this need to be a free market, and mechanism design need to be done before the token launch. I just donāt understand the user who created this thread, what is the point of restrictions?
hey friends. totally agree that dumping should disqualify wallet from future drops and think the idea of linking together with other protocols to develop a list of dumpers as well as a list of active participants who show up would be really valuable. side noteā¦ We are looking at building a list of vc who tend to dump at initial offering as another helpful tool.
US tax law is not conducive to this. We have to pay taxes on these airdrops when we receive them. I really need to be able to sell off a portion of them to cover my taxes. I actually have to pay the government to participate in these communities so these tokens are not exactly free.
I have held on to community tokens before and the price is high when they are airdropped. I cashed out ETH in order to pay the taxes and now the token is worth 10% of what it was before.
I wish the IRS treated these tokens as only taxable when sold so I could hold on to them. I prefer DAOs that use NFTs for governance because of this.