I’m a bit torn on this subject. I feel like OP token holders can do as they please with their tokens, without being punished for it in the future. However I must admit that an extra reward for holding onto the tokens and believing in the project does incentivize even more interaction with the platform…
Also totally agree with this proposal…
I sold part of my airdrop (about 70%). I claimed velo thanks to an earnifi notification, did not know what it was, swapped for OP. Does that make me a bad guy? No, I don’t think so. We’re in a bear market, I’ll jump back in when it will be the right time. If I’m excluded from upcoming airdrops for that, just be it - but I don’t think it’s really fair. Trading is part of crypto.
Its better to focus on who to reward and if they deserve the reward they should be able to do what they please with the tokens. Like the optimism protocol is aiming to be the most governance focused protocol around. Reward people for doing work in the forum, vote on proposals and engaging with the community. Like a reward to the community that cares about the protocol. Create a hodl mentality by adding use cases to the token like staking, like discounts on fees on diffrent protocols on optimism if you stake and so on. Incentives and rewards instead of punishment.
This seems a bit too extreme. For future airdrops, new criteria can be used, such as holding the amount of op, or often participating in governance.
This is very interesting and deep idea. Totally agree with you!
100% agree, that is better than restrictions
should be 50% threshold. those who sold more, may not get next airdrops
I think , I’m agree for half, because this proposal is too extreme for me.
I didn’t sell right away… however it did come in handy because I was broke haha. June 7th
10 days later I bought the Op tokens right back and put them back in my wallet. June 17th
Should I be excluded? (based on this proposal)
I totally agree, if optimism want to be fully comunity owned project, you should consider about how to increase number of comunity member, not harming the exist comunity member by giving unfair airdrop distribution
I think using Optimistic ETH chain and holding OP after airdrop 1 is a good requirement for airdrop 2. Obviously some OP was sold/swapped for other ecosystem tokens, gas, LPs, etc. I have bought and sold/swapped OP, for OP ETH for example. Basically if we didn’t dump our airdrop, but used some OP tokens, we should be okay. Definitely get rid of wallets that dumped, and contribute nothing to Optimism!
Best Regards, Mark
Impossible to vibe with this idea.
- Building walls is bad mmkay - people and their interests change all the time.
- If you value the token then you should be happy to get a discount from the (possible) acute sell pressure.
- People must have a choice. If consequences like this exist the users should be aware of them before making the choice.
disclaimer: did not sell any myself.
totally agree. would note that those large amounts should not have happened.
Sholud be based on proportion of received and dumped.
I agree[quote=“theblacksea.eth, post:2, topic:2143, full:true”]
Totally agreed with you
I totally agree .
Minimal cooperation is necessary for the creative development of the op ecosystem
Disagreed with this. I think it’s the personal propose of anyone.
Totally agree with you
I agree 100% anyone that sold their OP should be disqualified from any future airdrops, unless their wallets are active on Optimism.
Then why should the “Tokens sold/ not sold” status be an option anyway? The most important criteria is how active a wallet is and how frequently it interacts with dapps in the Optimism ecosystem