Optimism’s newly launched governance token, OP, it’s plunged 40% since it peaked at $2.10, leading community members to debate excluding those who dumped their tokens from future releases.
Cointelegraph reported on Tuesday that Ethereum’s layer 2 scaling solution was overwhelmed by demand for the first release of the OP governance token, as 5% of the token supply was distributed to some 250,000 eligible users.
According to data from CoinGecko, the token opened at roughly $1.43 before rising to $2.10, but as more users snapped up the free launch throughout the day, OP fell as low as $1.09 before rising back to $1.18 at the time of writing this article, which is a drop of 43%.
Yesterday was an absolute whirlwind. It wasn’t without hiccups, but to much excitement, OP was born. ‿
We’ll have an extensive retro on Drop Day next week. Meanwhile, we want to share some stats coming out of the launch.
With >50% of Drop 1 now claimed, let’s dive in! pic.twitter.com/oGnxB47E3f
— Optimism (✨_✨) (@optimismPBC) June 1, 2022
Yesterday’s day was a real whirlwind. He was not without setbacks, but with much excitement, the OP was born. ‿ Next week we will publish an extensive report on Launch Day. In the meantime, we want to share some stats from the launch. With >50% of Release 1 already claimed, let’s get started! pic.twitter.com/oGnxB47E3f
Following the sharp drop in OP price, a member of the governance community by the name of OxJohn submitted a proposal on the Optimism governance forum to exclude addresses that dumped 100% of their tokens.. The post garnered a significant amount of attention from the community, garnering 11,200 views, 305 replies, and 595 likes.
OxJohn highlighted several addresses that received at least 32,000 OP tokens and quickly dumped them on the market, arguing that their actions are “backward-productive” to the community and dilute the governance process..
The OP hodler suggested that these accounts should be excluded from the OP’s next round of releases and that there should be “a public list of accounts that engage in this behavior”. Doing so, he believes, would spread the burden of governance only to those who plan to actively participate.
“Why should the Optimism Collective continue to reward these types of mercenary actors who dump their tokens at the drop of a hat? Why should any future release reward these addresses?
The proposal was submitted solely for ideas and comments and is nowhere near the ballot stage. The reaction from the governance community has been mixed so far. Some users fully support the idea, others completely reject it, and others ask for a more nuanced position..
The user Mohammedt75 said: “Very valid points. Incentivize people who care about the long term and let those who don’t care about the ecosystem pack up and leave.”.
Mgomes stated that “one of the goals of the launch is to encourage people to use the chain. Even if they think about leaving it, it’s fine, because they have used Optimismand if they liked the chain, they will continue to use it.”
Member JustinMarx also highlighted an interesting counterpoint, stating that those who dumped tokens should not be penalized, as “you never know the personal circumstances of someone who dumped their tokens.”
The proposal to punish $OP airdrop dumpers by excluding them from future airdrops is some Paraswap shit lol. Yes go punish the only people who have used your chain. Make sure they go straight to your competitor Arbitrum and never come back.
— NoSleepJon (@nosleepjon) June 1, 2022
The proposal to punish those who have sold their OP tokens by excluding them from future releases is bullshit. Yes, go punish the only people who have used your chain. Make sure they go straight to your Arbitrum competitor and never come back.
One of the most high-profile crypto Twitter users to weigh was Cobie, the co-host of the cryptocurrency podcast UpOnly, which has almost 700,000 followers. He responded to the proposal in his typical satirical/mocking manner.
Cobie submitted a lengthy counterproposal on the forum entitled “Extended ineligibility for future airdrops” which was temporarily removed for being flagged as “inappropriate”, but has since been reinstated.
In her, said that “my lack of support for this proposal is not because I disagree with the sentiment. Rather, it is because this proposal does not go far enough”.
“I propose that we, the Optimism Collective, cancel future releases of anyone who has sold any tokens in the last 6 months. These people have a pattern of undesirable behavior, we can consider them “potential future sellers”.”
To counter potential future sellers, Cobie suggested issuing them a debt token and also considering using “physical violence” against them..
The post that *legitimately suggests banning sellers* is allowed on the Optimism forum.
But a parody of that post is offensive, abusive and a violation of community guidelines and will be deleted.
Thanks for the memories. pic.twitter.com/Ru0oFnZufw
—Cobie (@cobie) June 1, 2022
The post that legitimately suggests banning sellers is allowed on the Optimism forum. But a parody of that post is offensive, abusive, and a violation of the Community Guidelines and will be removed. Thanks for the memories. pic.twitter.com/Ru0oFnZufw
Nevertheless, after being prompted to give a more serious response to the proposal, Cobie highlighted several reasons why he thinks it’s a bad idea.
He pointed out points like that the initial price of OP is irrelevant, that the sellers have different reasons for having sold their tokens, the possibility of selling and still participating in the governance, that the token is used as part of the costs of acquiring clients of Optimism, and the ease of making a new address to avoid restrictions.
“The only ones who care are price speculators, traders and short-term investors. Governance certainly works the same whether the price is $1.50 or $2. Sure, extensive price changes could make Optimism’s governance hacks cheaper, but there’s not a single mention of that in the initial proposal. ”
“And it’s not really a concern given the size of the launch or the short-term nature of the ‘instant sellers’ selling pressure,” he added..
I was baited into posting a serious post since OP Labs staff were upset with my tone.https://t.co/wikRr8IB8Y pic.twitter.com/Z0fxtOJ8kx
—Cobie (@cobie) June 1, 2022
I was tricked into posting a serious post as OP Labs staff were upset with my sarcastic tone. https://t.co/wikRr8IB8Y pic.twitter.com/Z0fxtOJ8kx
Clarification: The information and/or opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views or editorial line of Cointelegraph. The information set forth herein should not be taken as financial advice or investment recommendation. All investment and commercial movement involve risks and it is the responsibility of each person to do their due research before making an investment decision.
Keep reading:
Investments in crypto assets are not regulated. They may not be suitable for retail investors and the full amount invested may be lost. The services or products offered are not aimed at or accessible to investors in Spain.