I am a firm holder of OP, but I think the proposer is retarded.
This’s stupid proposal.
1 Like
This is a typical Tyranny of the majority.
No difference from 99 voting on hang the last one and share his property.
I disagree.
First, what about decentralization ? Giving more power to those who already have power might not be the best idea.
Secondly, some people might need some liquidity. That does not mean they’re not interested in Optimism. That does not mean they’ll not accumulate OP in the future.
Lastly, the main goal of this proposal is to exclude airdrop hunters. But having those airdrop hunters in your DAO is not a good idea too. Let them dump OP, and accumulate more OP (at a lower price then) for those interested in participating in the DAO.
What about doing the opposite ? Giving more rewards to those who holds ?
I think it makes sense to discuss whether the person who sold the OP should be regarded as an address that cannot obtain subsequent airdrops. However, selling OP or withdrawing the address of OP to the exchange must not be regarded as the opposite of the community. This kind of thinking is harmful and not good for community development. At the same time, by adding OP to the fund pool, you get the corresponding benefits.
A few suggestions: 1. People who have not sold OPs can get a certain higher proportion of the subsequent voting rights, and a reasonable proportion can be set.
2. Because there are many follow-up projects in the official development, of course, the wallets that support the OP project on the OP network should be treated equally, and you cannot inquire about their previous handling of the OP.
我觉得讨论是否将卖掉OP的人是否就当做无法获得后续空投的地址，这是有意义的。但是绝对不能把卖掉了OP或者提取OP到交易所的地址当做社区的对立面。这种思维是有害的，不利于社区发展。同时，将OP加入资金池，你也获得了对应的收益。
几点建议：一、可以把未出售OP的人在后续的投票权比重中获得一定的更高比重，可以设置一个合理比例。
二、因为官方是有很多后续项目的发展，所以对OP网络支持Op项目的钱包当然应该一视同仁，而不能去查询他们之前对于OP的处理方式
1 Like
I think that bringing nuance could be a plus. For example, liquidity providers are doing a good job of deploying op.
On the other hand, a partial profit taking, selling, does not seem to me to be necessarily harmful. Would it be possible to have something finer, with an observation of thresholds, or a vision on the purpose of the sale (provide a protocol, dump and exit, trade on the asset , etc…)?
I agree in theory but some nuance seems to be necessary anyway, not all selling behavior is necessarily harmful behavior.
1 Like
In principle I agree, but we also have to consider each person’s situation here so I don’t see this as something easy to apply in practice.
In some jurisdictions, receiving an airdrop is a taxable event at the time of claiming. That means they need to sell or else they are gambling on the token’s price.
Say you receive 1,000 $OP when valued at $2. You now have $2,000 taxable income to declare and not $2,000 in hand to pay it. If you don’t immediately sell it for stables and the price drops to $1 and stays there for a year you owe income tax on $2,000 but have on hand only $1,000 to pay it.
5 Likes
to increase the value of optimism team have to in future airdrop to give only voters and holder, we the proposal approve then op price pump
i agree with proposal
Some people find exclusion in all the future distribution a bit extreme, its seems impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff, if you really want to build, to take part in the ecosystem, the OP governance, in this case there is no good reason to sell!
i think this guies fadup to sold op token ,
Although I understand the motivation behind this proposal, I don’t think this is a good idea.
This airdrop was planned as a multi-phase process to bring users to the Optimism network and to incentivize activity. By blacklisting sellers, the opposite result would most likely happen (see what happened to Paraswap…)
On top of that, some users may have sold for tax purposes, because they wanted to LP, or maybe because they could use that money to play in the ecosystem and potentially get future airdrops.
Instead of blacklisting the sellers, I’d rather take into account those who held and/or LPed for the next phase airdrops. Instead of having a -EV mindset, let’s try to focus on the bright side of things and incentivize cooperation and positive sum environments.
7 Likes
[…] 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.
++
If you want the airdropped token to convey an obligation to track and click buttons on a website, instead of being profitable to sell for money, make it unprofitable to sell.
1 Like
Thanks for laying out your thought processes and taking the time to raise the discussion.
The proposal however does seem a bit reactionary and i’m not sure blacklisting accounts that sold would benefit the Optimism ecosystem or help enforce the community values.
A few questions we could ask instead:
What are the incentives to hold?
-Alignment with Optimism values
-To get involved with governance
-Excitement around the OP community
Does blacklisting accounts provide an incentive to hold and join the community or just an incentive not to sell? Is this natural?
What are the incentives to sell?
-Tax obligations
-Profit motivations
-Money could be better used elsewhere
-Bear market
Are the market conditions helping? If we airdrop to the same accounts when times are better, would the same people not feel the need to sell as much and instead join the community?
A lot of the people I have spoken too who have sold haven’t done it because they don’t believe in our values, they’ve done it because the benefit of selling is greater than holding.
We should be working on how we can make the benefit of holding greater than selling if we want the ecosystem to thrive long term.
Blacklisting accounts also runs the risk of de-legitimising the Optimism ecosystem which can hurt for far longer than the airdrop being sold on day 1. If we alienate people this early on it could cause some serious long term damage.
Full disclosure, I sold 70% of the airdrop as it was a lot of money for me. The remaining 30% is being held onto with the plan to get involved long term.
6 Likes
totaly agreed infuture airdrop ll gives only op holders
Totally disagree with you.
- Buying and selling freedom, why interfere with the freedom of others.
- If you want more airdrop users to participate in governance, you should solve the problem from the mechanism. For example, the continued airdrop is only issued to the governance users, and the follow-up ecological projects are issued to the op holders.
3 Likes
i thinks the same . we are here for Technology not for money lol
I agree with this, for me this is huge money, I’m unemployed with a long term sickness. I kept 15% of my airdrop. I totally get if I’m excluded from future ones though I wouldn’t be upset. I’m only just getting into the more Dao side of things though.
3 Likes
I have to say too, anyone bringing up tax issues it’s kind of irrelevant for anyone living in a country that doesn’t have capital gains tax or others. it’s kind of beside the point here. I think blacklisting people is not really a good idea unless the paramiters are well defined like if they bought back or something but people could cheese something like that.
totally agree with you
Totally agree with. Things should be considered very carefully.
1 Like
This is simply not the optimistic way.
2 Likes