NO WAY at all !!! In a democratic world you can’t be punished for sell something that someone gave to you, it’s your’s! … If want gave a penalty to someone, gave to who conducted this airdrop and messy launch!
同意这样的操作！有很多的科学家让众多使用者很伤心！
This should indeed be considered carefully. People that directly dumped all their OPs should be banned from future airdrops IMO. These people don’t care about the project and its governance, whatever their reason, they got a share and made some profits. Good for them, no blame, but also no future participation.
Then, those of sold part of it, for profit on one side and some others, like me, that sold to provide liquidity.
And the golden hands that are holding without any action. All those categories should be mapped and considered differently for future airdrops.
Is this a joke? How can you give somebody a reward and then penalize them for doing what they want with it.
This is disgustingly backwards from cryptocurrency values, you are all only agreeing purely out of your own monetary self interests.
1 Like
Nobody is penalising anyone, did they not get something for ‘free’ already? This comes with responsibilities, those who take them on should be rewarded in the future. Those who took full profit, should just enjoy their new found money and go enjoy life and some farming somewhere else.
Governance tokens are made for governance, not for financial gains. We all need to live by our own choices. There is no such thing as free lunch.
1 Like
Hard disagree.
-
People will be less likely to sell in the future when markets exist for them to borrow against their holdings. Plus most of the mercenary dumpers have already been flushed out (good riddance IMO).
-
Maybe a tiny portion of dumpers actually have an urgent “need liquidity” motive, but let’s be honest - most are just dumping to get quick buck.
This is a golden opportunity to create a stable, engaged community out of this bear market. Something different to all the uninspiring pure speculation behavior we have seen to date.
This is a good proposal and i agreed with you
If these tokens are solely for governance then there should be 0 monetary value placed on them, but there is, because money is behind everything. Just like your argument.
We’re on the verge of an insane global economic depression right on the back of 2 years of lockdowns and low economic productivity. You have no idea how much somebody didn’t want to sell, but they had to.
Terrible idea, horrible precedent, this new obsession with tightening airdrops is already bad enough but doing something like this I think is a deathrattle for the governance airdrop space.
3 Likes
I agree with the proposal, the project is developing, but they cannot grow with the project
Contribution is zero, except all the usage of the network over the past year that got you into the airdrop in the first place? 
2 Likes
I fully agree with @rusowsky on this. I definitely understand the goal behind this post but it doesn’t account for individual situations. I think blacklisting entirely would be counterproductive but perhaps those that held could get a higher % if we want to reward them.
8 Likes
I am against the proposal.
Why create two houses if you think $OP should only be beneficial to governance? Are people supposed to hold on until the day they die even if this airdrop might have changed their lives? There are others who are buying, meaning the tokens will just be redistributed between the people who want to be a part of Optimism.
Secondly, more community efforts should be spent on excluding sybil users instead of users, who have really used the protocols in the past. Then why include them at all, if you don’t think they deserve it? Why not use all previous airdrops to exclude them from the start?
I started using Optimism last year because I also thought there might be an airdrop in the future, but I stayed for cheap fees and apps like Lyra. I sold a part of my airdrop, because I needed the liquidity for another opportunity, and might buy into $OP at a later time, but why am I not worthy of getting the next airdrop, even if I am planning to participate in governance discussions, vote for proposals, etc. I am not rich to HODL everything, so I am worse than others?
4 Likes
That’s good and it’s lesson for airdrop hunters
Totally Agree with you
I do not agree. I think the sentiment behind trying to find contributors is correct but like others, we are people that live in different parts of the world and different economic situations. In my case, I have an tax rate of over 35% on any income which airdrops are counted within. Thus for me to sell and get enough out after slippage and fees 40% provides enough.
Also, I have then sold some more to be able to provide liquidity on Uniswap in the OP/USDC pool which I would argue is beneficial regardless of the price that I sell at. Other portions of the Airdrop have gone to be able to test some other protocols on Optimism through staking, trading, and providing liquidity.
I am sure like many others, I work a full time job, have a life, and family, I cannot be around every day to be able to participate and check in on governance so I do my best but for anyone very active in this space, they likely hold 10+ different governance tokens and likely do not participate in all of the voting.
The proposal seems quite rash, would I be immediately punished because I sold to cover myself legally for taxes or to use protocols on Optimism? If anything, provide a way for people to lock tokens and get a bonus as that would more then likely be the preferred route for an active user correct? If they are able to gain a larger % holding in voting?
2 Likes
Agreed and there should indeed be 0 value to it.
People that had a need, already gained something, why would they benefit again if they sold all of it.
If they sold part of it then it should also be taken into account.
It’s just a a question of percentage like @linda said. You can view it from one side or the other, a percentage added to those who held, or removed to those who sold, just a question of PoV.
But I personally think that people that didn’t even hold a small percentage have no will to participate.
There is an NFT project by the name @GameOfBlocks from 2017. During 2021 people that did not sell, got diamond hands discord role and were airdropped different kind of rewards because of committing to hold. I think people need to be given incentives not punishments, those rarely work.
5 Likes
As much as i agree with you, what’s keeping people from just creating a freshly funded wallet that doesn’t have any initial OP airdrop connection to take part in further airdrops?
i disagree totally if a token is tradable then its upto one to decide what to do with it ,moreover if everyone held might that not be centralization of crypto, other great crypto projects have not been policing , people come people go and so does the market .
3 Likes
I wanted to signal my wholeheartedly agreement with this proposal. I’m seeing users claiming and dumping 20$-100k$ right away. I find this, at least, unethical and it also raises many points concerning the eligibility criteria.
This is the perfect opportunity to punish these users, namely these 5 figures dumpers. Its beyond preposterous why should OP subsidize them.
1 Like