Optimism Airdrop Exclusion Proposal Gathers Steam

Reading Time: 2 minutes
  • A proposal to block OP airdrop dumpers from receiving the second airdrop has garnered big support
  • Optimism distributed tokens to 250,000 addresses this week, with some dumping on exchanges immediately
  • The proposal argues that these individuals are not interested in project governance

A proposal to exclude those who instantly dumped their Optimism (OP) airdrop from being able to receive the second airdrop is gathering steam. The Optimism token launched on several exchanges this week with some 250,000 addresses receiving tokens through an airdrop, which itself was far from successful. However, while airdrop dumping is nothing new, it seems that in this particular instance the dumping by several whales has led to resentment from the Optimism community, to the point where a proposal has been made to exclude certain addresses from receiving the second airdrop.

Optimism Devs Asked to Block “Counter-productive” Recipients

The proposal to prevent certain people from being allowed to partake in the second Optimism airdrop was posted on Tuesday, the day the airdrop hit wallets. The proposer, 0xJohn, voiced his concern that those engaging in immediate selling “are not playing a constructive role in Optimism governance” and are instead “maximising for profit”.

As 0xJohn notes, while there is “nothing wrong with that” and that users are “free to do as they wish” with their coins, from Optimism governance’s perspective “such accounts are counter-productive for our stated goals.”

To counter, this 0xJohn proposes that “excluding such accounts in all the future distribution of Optimism’s airdrop”, as well as taking further steps:

Also, we can make a public list of accounts that engage in this behaviour, so that other projects and DAOs can also choose to borrow from our work – I believe many projects will be interested in rewarding those who actually contribute to governance, rather than those who just see ownership given into a protocol as a short term liquidity bonus.

Following identification of such accounts, 0xJohn then suggests identifying “zero contribution accounts which do not engage with the governance” and which should therefore “not be eligible for any governance weight”.

Actions Could Spur Dump-prevention Mechanisms

While it could be suggested that this move is not in line with the free spirited cryptocurrency ethos, it seems that 0xJohn has plenty of support, with the majority of respondents in agreement, either fully or partially. However, it doesn’t appear that the proposal has been put forward in time to have an impact, with some respondents informing the author that the snapshot has already been taken.

Regardless of the chances of its success or otherwise, the fact that emotions have been stirred to the point where large airdrop sellers are being targeted is an interesting turn of events and may well lead to future projects baking in means to prevent such actions.