Totally agreed with you
1 Like
It doesn’t make sense to penalize selling of tokens, if we also have incentives for providing liquidity.
2 Likes
a bit drastic but agreed! however, i think it’s best if you allow people to dump around 50%, such that some can realise gains in order to continue. also, removing them from all future drops and other protocols is too much, they will just make new wallets. thus it’s best to exclude them from CERTAIN drops. to maximise their pain
1 Like
It a good idea like I have said earlier but now that I think more on this. here are couple of points.
- What is the definition of “sell” ? what if a user is doing LP and got liquidated by the protocol or intentionally? how are you goona differentiate between them ?
- what if a user didnt sold but moved to a cex for better reward, LP or otherwise
1 Like
Fully agree with you. These people are not useful to the Optimism Community and Ecosystem
2 Likes
Similarly to what others have said before, I think it is a bit extreme.
I would say reward the people that held with extra allocations, and not give people that sold the whole slice of their pie.
Things don’t have to be so black and white, you know?
1 Like
nice , I completely agree with you
agreed with you,because it’s not faire
Exclude addresses which no delegate transaction is more simple.
maybe not fully banned for next airdrop but receive a lower percentage than people hold since the beginning ?
1 Like
isn’t that good though, it’s not penalisation, it’s just a criteria for the next drop to find the most real users!
real users also sell their tokens 
This is crazy talk… why not make the OP token not tradable at all ?
2 Likes
i think the point with cex transfers can be used against the user, cause an ideal OP user will stay on Optimism and use the protocols on-chain!
as for LPing, totally agree, there needs to be some way to check 
Penalising early market makers seems not-reasonable when You create a tradable token.
How about people that sold to buy back more tokens and get the bigger share of governance ?
How about all those people that didnt get airdropped and want to participate in governance ? Where do they buy their tokens from ? (someone actually has to sell them…)
Instead of thinking how to exlude people from the community, maybe we should focus on howto include more of them and grow the ecosystem ?
(just for disclosure - I didnt sell any of mine )
2 Likes
Yes, agree on first point. second one is tricky.
what they can and should do is blocking the addresses that claimed the token before it was live officially.
The direction is very good, and the practice is not operable.
If you sell the OP, will you not continue to use the op network?
Do users who have not obtained early airdrop and newcomers who have not sold OP have the right to airdrop?
Newcomers can get subsequent airdrops. Why can’t early coin sellers?
For example, if new OP users cannot get follow-up airdrops, only existing users will always be playing. Will the op network continue to develop?
Chinese original text, machinetranslation
方向很好，做法没有可操作性。
卖掉OP的未来就一定不会继续使用OP网络了吗？
没有获得早期空投的用户、以及没有卖过OP的新人有没空投权利呢？
新人可获得后继空投，为什么早期卖币的就不能呢？
如如OP新用户不能获得后续空投，那就永远只有存量用户在玩，OP网络还要发展吗？
1 Like
I have a question about how to determine those who have traded dumped. Some people can just move out first and then move back in later. But I think it’s a good idea to block the witch who grabbed the run
selling tokens is already a way to move tokens from less “real” to more "real "users.
2 Likes
agree , we need constructor , not destructor
This is very unfavorable to ordinary users, so what else is there besides giving the rewards directly to those whales