lost access to @rfveth account (ree), so had to make a new one.
Echoing my thoughts from Discord:
Option 4 is my preferred route;
As someone who bridged a lot of OHM back and forth, so might actually on balance benefit more from one of the first 3 options, I still don't think anyone who used OHM but didn't bridge (or bridged it over as gOHM via Synapse) is any less valuable, most of its usecase on other chains was arbitrage and borrowing, just the same as has been available on mainnet.
My biggest issue with 1-3 is this: Who has been more valuable to LayerZero, the person using OHM on mainnet in a way that makes it profitable (and therefore viable) for another party to bridge over and execute an arb, or the arber themselves? LZ wouldn't have been used without the first person's action, despite them not being the bridger here. I think for this reason alone, it's possible to get into qualitative and philosophical arguments which complicate the matter, and should be a sign to push us towards simplicity.
I also think there could be complications with either of the first 3 options with regards to the data:
We'd need to gather all the bridge data, decide whether to exclude anyone bridging back and forth without any organic activity (another qualitative issue that would take time to reach consensus on)
Then gather all the data of bridgers that used aggregators, parse out the original bridger's address rather than the aggregator's address
Then give an opportunity for challengers to find edge cases with the dataset
etc.
Whereas option 4 uses a dataset that we already have familiarity with, is extremely simple and standardized, and IMHO is also the fairest distribution which sets the best precedent going forward.
