PEOPLEETHEREUM

Governance Dispute: Optimism Community Calls for Stripping Dumpers of Airdrop Eligibility, Cobie Releases Satirical Proposal

share
Governance Dispute: Optimism Community Calls for Stripping Dumpers of Airdrop Eligibility, Cobie Releases Satirical Proposal

The Ethereum layer 2 scaling solution Optimism has officially airdropped tokens, but due to poor price performance, the community proposed to remove airdrop eligibility from users who have dumped tokens. This move has sparked controversy, with Cobie posting sarcastically about the absurdity of the proposal on the governance forum. After the post was blocked by the forum, Cobie responded to the community with a more serious tone, stating that Optimism should pay the cost of acquiring users through airdrops.

Community Proposal to Strip Airdrop Eligibility

Community member 0xJohn has submitted a proposal stating that while users can decide the use of tokens according to airdrop guidelines, from Optimism's governance perspective, such users may actually work against Optimism's development goals. The summary is as follows:

  1. Many wallet holders redeemed tokens and immediately cashed out on Uniswap, such as addresses One, Two, Three, Four.
  2. These users have not contributed constructively to Optimism's governance.
  3. Future airdrops will exclude such users.
  4. Next step will be to further exclude users who have not participated in governance.

Cobie's Satirical Proposal

Note: This paragraph contains a more humorous tone.

Renowned trader Cobie has made a proposal:

I am delighted to see this proposal to revoke airdrop eligibility, as it seems wise and centers around the core of all crypto protocols: token price. However, I cannot currently support this proposal, not because I disagree, quite the contrary, I believe the scale and intensity of the punishment should be further expanded.

1. Expand the scope of disqualification

It is suggested that anyone who has sold any tokens in the past six months should have their airdrop eligibility revoked, as these individuals' actions can be seen as "potential sellers," and Optimism should be a community that stands by its members faithfully. He also stated:

Six months may be too short, so we can check if these individuals have sold any non-crypto assets, such as selling a second-hand car, to predict if they are bad sellers.

2. Increase the severity of penalties

  1. Issue debt tokens to dumpers and instruct local institutions to collect debts from these individuals to increase protocol revenue.
  2. Consider taking violent actions against dumpers in a fight for faith. Many governance groups have active armies, like the US government.

3. Buying OP tokens should also result in airdrop disqualification

Cobie believes that these individuals have interacted with dumpers, received tainted and offloaded OP tokens, increased the coin price making it harder for retail investors to participate, and encouraged more seller activities.

He also suggests that anyone commenting on token prices should also be disqualified from future airdrops, as these individuals focus on the wrong indicators rather than governance.

Selling Does Not Equate to Lack of Faith in Optimism

Forum administrators briefly blocked Cobie's proposal on the grounds of "possible impersonation," only to restore it after Cobie posted the proposal on Twitter. This prompted Cobie to respond seriously to his views on the proposal.

He replied to the proposal, stating that selling tokens does not mean a lack of belief in Optimism or a lack of interest in governance participation; there could be various reasons for selling:

  • They may believe the current price is too high and wish to buy back lower for more significant governance rights.
  • They may believe the price will stay flat but anticipate a dump after an airdrop, hence selling first.
  • Due to a bear market, they have liquidated 90% of their assets and plan to buy back later.

User Acquisition Costs

Cobie believes this is the Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) Optimism should bear, and therefore reviewing user behavior is inappropriate.

Airdrops are evaluated based on "usage," meaning "spend money to get users to use." It is natural for users to sell tokens as rewards, and if such users are not deemed important, they should not be rewarded with airdrops. He pointed out:

If the goal is to only airdrop to long-term holders, the tokens should even be non-transferable. Of course, this is not a useful user acquisition method, so nobody does it.

Is Short-Term Price Important?

Cobie bluntly states that whether it's $1.5 or $2, the governance effect will undoubtedly be the same, and Optimism's valuation depends on influence and user value, with dumpers not significantly impacting this.

Does a price drop for a day or two matter? Why care? This is the cost Optimism pays for incentivizing with tokens.

Cobie emphasizes that the number of long-term token holders is not a measure of Optimism's success. User A might be a loyal protocol user but uninterested in governance, hence selling airdrop tokens; User B may not have sold tokens but participated in governance, yet with minimal usage.

So, should airdrops be given to User A or User B? Cobie sees no optimization need for "holders criteria," and "airdrop criteria and rewards" should be aligned. Users should be rewarded as users, and if the aim is to reward long-term holders, a different set of airdrop criteria should be established.