Extension of the Airdrop Claim Period for Eligible Participants

Token House
1

Proposal Title: Extension of the Airdrop Claim Period for Eligible Participants

Status: [Draft]

Proposal Type: Airdrop
*(not in the current list of types, but other types do not match)*

Abstract:

This proposal requests an extension of the claim period for the recent Obol airdrop, allowing eligible participants who were unable to claim within the initial timeframe to receive their tokens.
The extension is aimed at fostering inclusivity, enhancing community trust, and ensuring long-term engagement within the Obol ecosystem

Motivation:

The airdrop is an important mechanism for distributing ownership, aligning incentives, and growing the Obol community. However, a significant number of eligible participants were unable to claim their tokens due to a variety of reasons, such as:

  • Insufficient or missed communications, including lack of announcements from partner projects about the token claim
  • Technical issues or lost wallet access during the claim window.
  • Personal circumstances (e.g., travel, health issues, military service).

Ultimately, the specific reasons listed above are not the most important factor. What truly matters is that these users actively contributed to the growth and decentralization of the Obol network but were unable to claim. The claim restrictions seem to have been introduced primarily as a procedural measure, rather than being necessitated by security, legal, or regulatory considerations.

Other major Web3 projects have recognized the importance of honoring contributor efforts over rigid deadlines. For example, ENS offered a manual recovery process for eligible users who missed the initial airdrop, Optimism introduced multiple rounds of retroactive airdrops to include previously excluded contributors, and Arbitrum provided 6-month claim period. These examples show that flexibility and fairness are aligned with decentralization principles

Extending the claim period offers several benefits:

  1. Inclusivity: Ensures that all eligible participants who wish to engage with Obol can do so.
  2. Community Trust: Demonstrates the project’s responsiveness and commitment to fairness.
  3. Ecosystem Growth: More token holders = more potential stakers, governance participants, and builders.
  4. Reputation: Aligns Obol with other leading projects known for their community-centric approaches.
  5. Feasibility: Technically straightforward with no costs.

Specification:

  • Extension Period: Propose an additional 4-8 weeks for eligible participants to claim their tokens
  • Eligibility: Maintain the original eligibility criteria; no new recipients will be added.
  • Process:
    • Re-open the claim interface for the defined period.
    • Conduct targeted communication campaigns to ensure maximum awareness.
    • Optionally, publish clear statistics on unclaimed tokens to date.

This change can be implemented via an administrative decision by the relevant Obol multisig

** Action Plan:**

  • June 3 - June 15: Post proposal on forum for feedback, get approval from 4 top-100 delegates
  • June 16 - June 22: Submit proposal on Tally for onchain voting
  • OBOL Token Claim Extension: Initiating a Second Claim Period

Conclusion:

This proposal requests an additional 4-8 weeks for eligible participants to claim their tokens.
By extending the airdrop claim period, Obol can align with these best practices, reinforce its commitment to fairness, and foster a stronger and more active community

6 Likes
2

Thanks for the proposal @cp0x!

I generally support the idea. However, I believe the proposal can be improved in several aspects:

If you believe that was one reason the initial claim rate was low, then I suggest adding a comms plan to the proposal to ensure that this issue will be resolved in case of a claim period extension.

These are good examples. To make it easier for the community to verify and learn more about them, I suggest adding links to the corresponding proposals/votes associated with the highlighted cases.

Have you checked the exact technical feasibility of the proposal? I’m not an expert in Tally smart contracts, so I can not confirm that there is a simple way to re-enable claims. Please attach a link or research results confirming that it is feasible to re-enable claims without contract upgrades or other complexities.

I think an exact period should be proposed. For me, 8 weeks sounds like a reasonable amount of time.

With the concerns listed above addressed, I believe the proposal might proceed to the vote.

4 Likes
3

I’m delegator with 109,493.2 VP 1.26%, and I’m voting NO on this prop. 90 days is more than enough to claim an airdrop, many projects only give 30. If someone hasn’t claimed within that window, it clearly means they’re not interested in the project. And if they ever do claim, they’ll just dump the tokens right away anyway.

3 Likes
4

Great comment, I will make the appropriate changes, initially with the following wording:

Communications Plan

To address the concern regarding insufficient or missed communications, this proposal also includes a clear and actionable communications plan to ensure maximum awareness in the event of a claim period extension:

  1. Enhanced Public Announcements:
  • Coordinated announcements across all Obol official channels, including Twitter, Discord, Telegram, and the community forum.
  • Specific outreach to partner projects with a request to amplify the message and inform their respective communities about the extended claim window.
  1. Website Banner:
  • A prominent banner on the Obol homepage (https://obol.org/) displaying a clear call-to-action about the extended claim period, with a direct link to the claim interface and relevant instructions.

By incorporating this communication strategy, the proposal aims to significantly mitigate the risk of users missing out again, ensuring that the extended claim period achieves its full intended impact.

I will add the following links:

which contains the 5th airdrop for users rn

ENS: There was a discussion regarding ENS that I reviewed while preparing this proposal, but unfortunately it is a poor example since the second claim round did not take place.
This point will be excluded from the proposal

I have analyzed the available information and here are some conclusions (Obol experts, please correct me if I’m wrong):

  • Initially, users had to execute the claimAndDelegate function from the contract at 0xEfd2247fcC3C7aA1FCbE1d2b81e6d0164583eeA3; at that point, an NFT was sent to the user’s address.
  • Then, the next contract at 0x3b9122704a20946e9cb49b2a8616ccc0f0d61adb would, upon executing the unlock function, burn the NFT and transfer the corresponding amount of tokens to the address.

Currently, it is no longer possible to execute claimAndDelegate due to the campaign’s expiration.
However, the contract allows the creation of a new campaign via createUnlockedCampaign or createLockedCampaign.

Accordingly, action is indeed required from the Obol managers — to launch a new campaign — but no contract modification is necessary

It would be good to hear technical comments from the Obol admins

4 Likes
5

Thanks for your opinion.

I believe it is unfair to deprive users of their rewards for having already performed a valuable function for Obol. I understand your concerns about them potentially selling their tokens, but

I also believe that it is their right to do so, as they have completed certain work that the Obol team considered valuable and allocated tokens to them accordingly

4 Likes
6

Thanks for the reply!

I believe that the Communications plan and tech feasibility sound.

Regarding references to the other projects, I still can’t see a link or comment about the above-mentioned Arbitrum case. Can you add a link regarding that as well?

Also, what are your thoughts about the proposed duration? I think it is crucial to have an exact time duration.

4 Likes
7

100% agree! we need it

3 Likes
8

Here is a link to information about the duration of the Arbitrum airdrop

6 months is a good example of why it’s not worth significantly shortening the claim period

About duration: I thought that 8 weeks would be the best decision

1 Like
9

I think now all of my concerns are addressed. You will have my formal approval as soon as it is incorporated into the original proposal text.

4 Likes
10

I think this is a reasonable and well-thought-out proposal, and I support it.

Missing an airdrop deadline doesn’t mean someone didn’t care — people have lives, travel, personal issues, or simply missed the comms. If someone contributed to Obol and was eligible, they should still have the chance to claim what they’ve earned.

It’s also great to see examples like Arbitrum and Optimism mentioned. The idea of rewarding contributors fairly — even if they missed a window — is aligned with the spirit of decentralization.

The technical side seems covered too. If no contract changes are needed and it’s just a matter of launching a new campaign, then there’s really no strong reason not to do it.

I also appreciate that the proposal includes a solid communication plan this time. That’s key.

8 weeks sounds fair. Hope delegates will give this a serious look — it’s the kind of decision that shows the project actually cares about its contributors.

4 Likes
11

I was on a long business trip, came back and it turned out that the opportunity to stamp tokens ended 2 days ago. Many have real life situations due to which it was impossible to meet the deadline. It would be great to accept to give an additional opportunity to receive tokens.

3 Likes
12

I understand that you promised your community to post this vote. But I’m voting no! 90 days is more than enough!

3 Likes
13

You as cp0x received a grant for promoting Obol within your community. So why couldn’t you notify your community about the claim? It’s only in your community that many people didn’t claim, which is why you created the proposal. Maybe you could allocate some tokens from your grant then.

1 Like
14

No one asked us to submit this proposal — it was entirely our initiative, based on what we saw both in our community and from other sources.

The core question here should be this: Did these people deserve to receive their tokens?
And Obol already answered that — they did, by allocating them a share.
We’re simply asking to let them claim what was already theirs

4 Likes
15

We received many messages in our community — both from ourselves and interested users — as well as during community calls.
However, we didn’t create this proposal primarily for our own community, but for the sake of public goods.

We believe it’s fair to give people a chance to claim what the Obol team already allocated to them — they simply ran out of time. You can blame them, but not everyone can keep track of every TGE across all the projects they’ve participated in

4 Likes
17

I support this proposal, as some active solo stakers in our community missed the claim period due to the forever undefined and long lockup timeframe and inconsistent communication around deadlines. Extending the claim period would fairly acknowledge their participation and ensure committed community members aren’t penalized by unclear or delayed messaging. If you consider the actual token unlock as a start the claim period was less than 4 weeks.

3 Likes
18

No, that’s no longer the core question. The real issue now is that there will be strong selling pressure, and the token is already going through tough times.

1 Like
19

It would be better to figure out how to redistribute those tokens to active community members instead, rather than to those who didn’t even remember the project over 90 days.

2 Likes
20

Why exactly 90 days should be enough? If I missed it by 2 days, can we assume that I definitely can no longer claim my tokens? I’m not asking for someone else’s, I’m talking about the tokens that I earned by supporting the project. I physically could not have access to wallets and the ability to make a claim. Can we say that because of this I am less worthy than those who managed to do it?

21

Here is how the 90-day claim window was communicated on the @Obol_Collective Twitter account:

  1. 21 Jan — initial token-claim tweet https://x.com/obol_collective/status/1881719054215602532
    The 90-day window is not mentioned in the lead tweet—only in the third tweet of the thread.
  2. 24 Jan — “official” claim announcement https://x.com/obol_collective/status/1882810225201418680
    The 90-day window is not mentioned anywhere in this thread.
  3. 10 Apr — first reminder
  4. https://x.com/obol_collective/status/1910321250901315951
  5. 23 Apr — final reminder, less than 24 h before expiry https://x.com/obol_collective/status/1914843845726232726

This underscores why our proposal remains so important:

Between 21 Jan and 24 Apr the @Obol_Collective account published 1,500+ tweets. Only four referenced the claim at all, and just three mentioned the 90-day period—one of them only 24 hours before the deadline. That is roughly 0.1 % of total output—far from sufficient to ensure broad awareness.

Moreover, in one of those four tweets (the main announcement) the 90-day window was omitted entirely, in another it was buried inside the thread, and the last reminder left users with virtually no time to act.

3 Likes