2026-01-08 23:21:14

Optimism Foundation just announced something interesting about OP tokenomics. They're planning to use half of the Superchain revenue for OP buybacks—this could be a significant move for the token. The governance vote is locked in for January 22, with a February launch target if approved.

Here's the backdrop: the Superchain model generated around 5,868 ETH in annual revenue. By allocating 50% back into the market through buybacks, the foundation is essentially creating a buyback mechanism tied to actual protocol revenue. That's a structural approach to supporting OP's market dynamics.

The timeline matters too. January 22 gives the community time to discuss and vote, then February goes live. For OP holders and Optimism ecosystem participants, this mechanism could influence token supply dynamics and potentially support price action—assuming the Superchain continues generating meaningful revenue.

Worth keeping an eye on how the governance vote unfolds and what the actual buyback execution looks like once it kicks off.

OP-0,43%

ETH0,31%

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.

17 Likes

Reward
17
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MeltdownSurvivalist

· 4h ago

Half of the revenue buyback? Sounds good, but it depends on whether Superchain can sustain stable cash flow. --- Is this move to stabilize the market or a long-term support? We'll know after the vote on the 22nd. --- Another buyback mechanism and revenue tie-in... Ultimately, it depends on whether they can truly execute in February. --- 5868 ETH annual revenue split in half for buyback? Sounds a bit... Wait, is this number reliable? --- Hold on, what if Superchain always has revenue? That assumption is too optimistic haha. --- Finally, a project thinking of using actual income to support the token, but execution is the key. --- Vote on January 22, launch in February, the process is quite smooth, just worried it’s another PPT promise. --- Buyback, buyback, is it to support the market or truly optimize supply... Anyway, I’ll wait and see.

View OriginalReply0

BottomMisser

· 11h ago

NGL, this buyback mechanism sounds pretty good, but it all depends on how well it's executed... 5868 ETH split in half for buyback, it still seems like superchain needs to keep bleeding to make it work. --- OP's move this time is a bit interesting, but I'm more concerned about how long they can burn, what if revenue drops? --- Wait, will they really execute on time? They've made promises like this before... never mind, let's wait and see the voting results. --- It's called a buyback in a nice way, but actually they just want to stabilize the price. I’m skeptical... --- As long as it's not a rug pull, it's fine. Anyway, I’ve already failed at bottom fishing, so whatever. --- Honestly, a revenue-driven mechanism is definitely more reliable than empty promises, but is 50% too aggressive?

View OriginalReply0

CryptoCross-TalkClub

· 01-09 20:13

Laughing out loud, only 5868 ETH in revenue over half a year, how many months can a buyback support with half of that? --- Another round of "We value the price" performance, let's see how much they actually invest in February. --- Voting on January 22? Fellow investors, is this a right for us to vote or an obligation to vote? --- Superchain's annual revenue of 5868 ETH, how scarce must that be? Can we stop just talking about buyback and first clarify where this money comes from? --- Feels like another sketch of "We're doing something," only to see the real move when execution begins. --- Only this much revenue in half a year, using buyback to stabilize the price—this approach seems a bit weak, brother. --- I'm just worried that the February buyback plan will be even less lively than the community discussion.

View OriginalReply0

Degen4Breakfast

· 01-08 23:51

Haha, wait a minute, can this buyback really hold up? With 5868 ETH annual revenue, splitting half for buyback feels a bit...虚 (虚 means "hollow" or "superficial")

View OriginalReply0

JustHereForAirdrops

· 01-08 23:30

Nah, this buyback mechanism sounds good, but I'm just worried it will end up being just a pie in the sky... --- OP's recent move is serious; genuine buyback with real money. Let's see if the Superchain can keep bleeding afterward. --- Wait, is the 5868 ETH annual income real? Feels not as much as I imagined. --- Voting on January 22, I just want to know if the whales will push it again... --- What sounds good is buyback, but actually it's just a way to boost confidence. At least the stance is decent. --- I like this logic; income directly reinvested into token holders, but it has to be executed properly.

View OriginalReply0

ChainPoet

· 01-08 23:27

There's something here. Using half of the annual income from 5868 ETH for buybacks directly reinvests the protocol's revenue back to token holders. The logic still holds.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunterX

· 01-08 23:26

Half a year ago, everyone was hyping that Superchain could save L2. Now they're finally going to buy back with real money. This is getting interesting...

View OriginalReply0

StableBoi

· 01-08 23:26

Nah, I don't think so. The buyback mechanism feels a bit too optimistic... What if Superchain's revenue declines? --- OP holders are waiting for February. Hopefully, it won't be another governance drama. --- Half a year, 5868 ETH collected, half of it used for buyback... The numbers sound good, but the actual implementation depends on how the foundation handles it. --- Another "structural approach." Will anyone seriously participate in the voting on the 22nd? --- To be honest, it's hard to say how much impact this buyback will have compared to the price... --- Let's wait and see. Whether they can fulfill their promises in February is the key. --- OP's governance votes have always been like this... Vote and forget, the crucial part is whether they can boost the market afterward.

View OriginalReply0