2026-01-08 15:32:02

The Optimism Foundation recently announced a new proposal, with the core idea of tying the value of the OP token to the growth of the Superchain ecosystem. The specific plan is straightforward — starting from February this year, 50% of the revenue generated by the Superchain will be used to buy back OP tokens.

The logic behind this move is quite clear. On one hand, it can stabilize the long-term value of the token; on the other hand, it sends a signal to the market: the foundation is confident in the future of the ecosystem. Supporting OP's market performance through buybacks is a common strategy in DeFi and Layer 2 sectors.

For ecosystem participants, this adds a positive factor. The Superchain itself is expanding Ethereum's performance and application ecosystem. If revenue continues to grow steadily, the scale of subsequent buybacks will also increase accordingly.

OP2.54%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DeFiCaffeinator

· 40m ago

Wow, 50% buyback? This move is really about tying OP tightly to the Superchain. If you bet right, you'll make a fortune; if you bet wrong, it’ll be awkward. --- Honestly, this tactic is everywhere in L2. Can token economics save the day? Let’s wait and see. --- Wait, where does the revenue come from? Does Superchain have such strong cash flow now? I don’t feel it. --- Relying on buybacks to support the market... sounds a bit hollow. It all depends on whether the actual income can keep up later. --- If Superchain really takes off, then this proposal is worth something; otherwise, what’s the point of buybacks? It’s all talk. --- But on the other hand, the foundation daring to spend this much money does give some confidence; at least the attitude is clear. --- Wait, wait, wait, starting from February? It’s already several months now. Has this been implemented? --- Alright, it all depends on whether Superchain’s income can support this ambition. In the end, it all comes back to the ecosystem itself.

View OriginalReply0

ZKSherlock

· 01-08 16:01

actually, hold up—they're framing this as some grand mechanism design moment, but like... isn't this just the classic token sink playbook we've seen a thousand times? buybacks are pretty transparent obfuscation of underlying economic fundamentals, ngl

Reply0

RugpullSurvivor

· 01-08 16:00

Finally, someone dares to use half of their revenue for buybacks. This is much more reliable than projects that only talk big but do nothing. The real test is whether Superchain can make money; otherwise, it's all just talk. A 50% buyback sounds great, but the ecosystem itself needs to stay alive. If this move succeeds, OP should rise. The question is, when will we see real income growth? It's called confidence on the surface, but in fact, it's probably driven by market pressure. In a bear market, such promises are most likely to turn into bubbles. Let's see how they execute it later.

View OriginalReply0

OnlyUpOnly

· 01-08 16:00

Finally, someone is taking OP seriously. The buyback move is essentially betting that Superchain can make money. It looks good, but the real test is ahead... Whether revenue can grow steadily is the key. Both buybacks and confidence release sound great, it all depends on how well the execution is. To be honest, now all L2s are competing for revenue, and OP's move is considered to be keeping up with the rhythm. I understand this logic, but the question is when will revenue truly take off? Don’t let it become just another promise in a PPT.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-bd883c58

· 01-08 15:53

It's another buyback scheme. I just want to see how long this can last. OP's fundamentals are still the same. Can buybacks save the market? Revenue growth is the key, otherwise buybacks are pointless. Can Superchain really gain volume? That's a big question mark. 50% buyback sounds significant, but it depends on the actual numbers. Feels like they're just telling a story again. Still, let's wait for real data. Buybacks are good, but I'm worried the follow-up won't meet expectations. With such fierce L2 competition, just buybacks aren't enough. Arbitrum has already played this game before. What's new? It's a bit like using buybacks to buy time, waiting for technology to catch up.

View OriginalReply0

DegenRecoveryGroup

· 01-08 15:52

Now OP has confidence; the 50% revenue buyback is truly a gamble on Superchain's growth. Buybacks are good; they're a hundred times better than projects that are just air every day. To be honest, revenue needs to keep up, or else buybacks are just on paper. Wait, can Superchain really increase its revenue? That's the key. Buybacks alone are useless; it depends on how the applications in the ecosystem are built.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleShadow

· 01-08 15:47

50% buyback? Sounds good, just worried about execution. --- Superchain making money, let's talk about it later, it's still early. --- It's the same old story, overused tactics in DeFi, can't we come up with some new tricks? --- Sounds nice, but the key is whether the revenue can really increase later. --- I've heard too many times about tying token value to the ecosystem, haha. --- 50% buyback? Alright, anyway, everyone holding tokens is just waiting. --- Now OP has more confidence, much better than just air. --- Remember those buyback plans from before, what happened to them later? --- Where the money comes from is the key, don't blow it all in the end. --- But if OP's price can truly be stabilized, it would be a long-term benefit.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropChaser

· 01-08 15:43

50% buyback, sounds good, let's see if the foundation can generate revenue from the Superchain Don't just talk, the key is how much real income can be generated later This strategy is actually just supporting OP; if the market stagnates, they also need to find ways to rescue it

View OriginalReply0