Snach

🔴 OPTIMISM IS ONE OF THE BEST L2, BUT THE OP TOKEN LACKS UTILITY 1) @Optimism has achieved a lot. It has managed to bring on board such names as Base, World Chain, Unichain, Ink, Swell, Zora, Polynomial, BOB, Derive Chain, Cyber, Soneium, Mode, and others is truly commendable. OP Stack is the best today. @arbitrum is trying to compete here, with Robinhood, Xai, ApeChain, and Kinto on board. But still, there are far fewer names here. Let's give Optimism credit for that! But in light of the emergence of the ambitious @LineaBuild chain with a deflationary token in this niche, which I wrote about in my last post, @jinglejamop, @ben_chain, and @karl_dot_tech, it's time to think about the utility of the $OP token. We can't ignore the $LINEA buyback & burn if we don't want to lose! @ethereumJoseph is changing the rules of the game! It is fair to say that Optimism has incentive rewards, where each OP Chain in the Superchain transfers a portion of its revenue back to the Optimism Collective through a fee distribution that is enforced across the entire network. The fee split is calculated as the greater of either 2.5% of chain revenue or 15% of onchain profit, defined as fee revenue minus L1 gas fees. But in this case, revenue is distributed to public goods, where only a group of individuals who meet the criteria benefit, and all $OP token holders gain nothing from this.

💪 NEW STANDARD FOR LINEA L2 CHAIN TOKEN 1) The token governance paradigm has long been useless. I wrote about this back on October 26, 2024 teapaw.org/coinmetrika/status/185… Let me remind you in broad strokes that at that time I recommended @LineaBuild to focus on the utility of the $LINEA token, rather than rushing to launch a voting token. Among the proposals was the following: L2 tokens need a utility! Another voting token won't work... Instead of rushing to release the token, the team would be better off focusing on the utility of the token. One voting function is not enough! All of L2 needs $ETH and can easily do without the native network token, it simply has no utility. That's a problem... It is possible to go further and improve the idea by thinking through the combustion mechanisms. Which would make the token deflationary in the long run... Today, the LINEA token is already trading on exchanges. And the project team, represented by @ethereumJoseph and @DeclanFox14, has changed the rules of the game in the L2 chain segment. Respect to them for that, it was high time someone did it and led this movement. I think @VitalikButerin will also appreciate these efforts when the next L2 came not to take away from Ethereum, but also to give. This design makes the network “Ethereum-aligned”: every activity on L2 directly supports the ETH shortage on L1. And I think it's right, as with the minimum Stage threshold (I talked about the difference between Stage 0-2 in the video youtu.be/SDqUoUiJXCw), to introduce rules for L2 to spend part of the revenue received on repurchasing and burning ETH. While tokens from chains such as Optimism, @arbitrum, Starknet and zkSync perform a governance function, the LINEA token does not. Bingo, it's done! I am sincerely happy about this! The value of the token created by @Consensys is tied to the network's revenue through buyback&burn. Gas in Linea is paid in ETH, and LINEA itself is not a gas token, unlike $STRK or paymasters support for ERC-20 from zkSync Era. 20% of net revenue in ETH (after deducting costs for publishing data on L1 via EIP-4844 blobs, proof verification, etc.) is burned in ETH, and 80% of net revenue is used to buy back and burn $LINEA. This makes the scarcity of both assets a function of the actual network load.