Extension of the Airdrop Claim Period for Eligible Participants

Token House
43

I am an Obol Delegate with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

While I support this moving to a vote, I want to share my current perspective for the community’s consideration. I concede the point that the initial communication efforts may have been lacking, likely contributing to the high number of unclaimed tokens. However, despite this shortcoming, my primary reservations stem from the allocation of resources and the precedent it would set. This proposal would divert valuable Obol team’s developer bandwidth away from core protocol priorities toward a retroactive administrative task. Instead of focusing on a past distribution, the significant pool of unclaimed tokens should be viewed as a strategic asset that can be redeployed to drive future growth, such as through new grants or other ecosystem initiatives that would provide a greater long-term benefit to all participants.

2 Likes
44

I think these messages are no longer valid. The cycle for this proposal has ended. a new one needs to be created.

45

I am an Obol Delegate Tally profile with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

46

Thanks, your concerns are understandable and I agree with them.

However, I hope that the Obol team initially calculated the percentage of tokens that they would leave for the development and promotion of the project, and they did not expect that no one would claim the tokens allocated to users

47

In your proposal, you indicate to provide a period of 8 weeks. But what should people do if they miss this period again? Should they put it to a vote again? And if it is not approved in the future?

One can assume that you are trying not for everyone, but for someone in particular.

48

In general, any time-limited claim period feels like an unnatural process to me

I understand your concerns — it’s natural to feel protective of your funds when there’s a risk of token value decreasing. However, with staking now live, the likelihood of such a situation is much lower

However, if we look beyond individual interests, here’s the broader picture:

  1. This question has already been addressed in the proposal — including plans to raise awareness about the extended airdrop period through branding and communication, also involving Obol’s partners.
  2. As I’ve mentioned multiple times, it’s simply unfair that some people received tokens while others, who contributed equally, did not — just because they missed a deadline. Imagine quitting your job and being told you won’t be paid for the last month because you no longer work there. Would that be fair? This situation is no different.
  3. I don’t see any issue with putting this proposal up for a vote. If you disagree, you’re free to vote AGAINST. It’s strange to accuse me of anything when all I’m doing is proposing a transparent, fair vote — yes or no.

I will respect whatever decision the DAO makes, but we can only see that decision by holding a vote.

49

You say that a time-limited claim is unnatural. But in fact, it’s precisely the deadline that makes the process fair, predictable, and manageable. Without a clear cutoff, any distribution loses its boundaries and turns into an endless cycle of reopening settled matters.
You compare a missed claim to unpaid salary. But a claim isn’t a salary — it’s an offer, one that had to be accepted within a defined period.
You argue that you’re simply proposing a DAO vote. But this is already the second or third attempt to reopen a closed chapter..
If we vote ‘yes’ today, tomorrow those who were a week late will return. And in a month — those who were six months late. That’s how the funnel of endless re-evaluation works. And it needs to be stopped once, so we never have to return to it again

50

It feels a bit off — users contributed work that supported Obol, and in return, Obol offered them tokens.
They’ve already earned those tokens, moreover, these tokens are still shown on the frontend today — users can see them, but can’t claim them. That makes the situation even more confusing

This isn’t some store discount where if you’re late, too bad — your loss. It’s a reward for meaningful work that helped build a project developed over many years.

From your perspective, would it be acceptable to set a 5-minute claim window and say “miss the window, miss the tokens”?
Where’s the reasonable line? And how do you define what’s “enough” time?

I’ve already provided a detailed message to Max (referenced above), where I clearly explain the work ahead to notify everyone. That’s why I believe a repeat proposal won’t be necessary

51

Oh please, let’s not use such grand language about “meaningful work.” Everyone who truly contributed and followed the project already claimed their tokens.

What we’re talking about now are people who just happened to stake ETH and accidentally received some Obol tokens.

Your point about the frontend is valid though.

I suggest the team remove the claim page altogether.

1 Like
52

Thank you for putting this proposal forward. I appreciate the intent behind it and fully understand the desire to ensure fairness and inclusivity within the Obol ecosystem.

That said, from my perspective, we should not reopen the airdrop claim period. Here’s why:

1. Three Months Was More Than Fair

The claim window was open for three months, which is a generous timeframe by Web3 standards. It gave all eligible users ample opportunity to claim their tokens. Whether someone was traveling, facing personal issues, or experiencing technical difficulties, three months is sufficient time to take a few minutes to claim free tokens.

Even for users with wallet issues, we provided support via Discord and resolved those requests in time. The window wasn’t arbitrary — it was clearly communicated in advance and through multiple channels (Twitter, Discord, the claim interface, partner updates).

2. The Motivation Doesn’t Justify Reopening

The reasons cited — missed communications, lost wallets, personal circumstances — while unfortunate in individual cases, do not constitute a systemic failure or a strong enough rationale to reverse a closed process. The claim process was not gated or complex. The claim site was public and live for months.

This proposal frames the claim window as a procedural formality, but we don’t see it that way. The deadline was an intentional mechanism: a reasonable filter that aligns with accountability and engagement, which are core to Obol’s long-term values.

3. We Want to Reward Contributions — But With Intentionality

It’s true that we want to recognize and reward contributors. But that doesn’t mean reissuing tokens to be claimed retroactively, especially when the contributors in question were already included and simply did not follow through.

We also want to be responsible stewards of the token supply. Reopening the claim window adds potential sell pressure without adding value to the ecosystem. That’s not good for the project or its long-term mission. We aim to use tokens to fund meaningful, future-facing initiatives — not to extend giveaways after the fact.

4. There Is a Technical and Reputation Cost

Even if this seems straightforward to implement, it isn’t free: it takes engineering time, creates interface and messaging complexity, and sets a precedent that deadlines are flexible, which weakens future programs. It also adds reputational risk: reopening claim windows after closing them introduces uncertainty that we generally seek to avoid.

5. Outside the Scope of Collective Governance

It’s also important to clarify that this kind of request is not within the scope of proposals for the Token House. The airdrop was designed and executed by the Obol Association before governance was launched, and as such, it falls under the Association’s operational mandate — not collective decision-making. This is stated in the Obol governance documentation. Governance exists to shape the future of the network, not to retroactively change decisions made prior to its activation.

In short, while I understand the motivation, I believe that the claim process was fair, clearly communicated, and sufficiently long. At this stage, we should move forward, focus on building, and support contributors through new, intentional initiatives, not by reopening past ones.

Thanks again for the effort, and we look forward to continuing to build with the community.

5 Likes
53

@Leo-ObolAssoc thanks for weighing in.
I do agree with many of your points, and plan to vote against the proposal if it comes to that.
And indeed, I feel a vote would be the best way to resolve this. As I also see the problem of few active delegates participating here from the top10 and the larger community.
And I certainly think that @cp0x made a good case and following up, and so in that sense also following through help establish the process.
Hence:
I am an Obol Delegate Tally profile with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote

5 Likes
54

This is a reasonable position I’m sharing.

I am an Obol Delegate Tally profile with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote

2 Likes
55

The following reflects the views of @vista ₊˚⊹

I’ll start saying that while we do not have a strong opinion on the intention of this proposal, the operational burden from the Association and possibly other members of the Collective.

Plus there’s no evidence that airdrops lead to any desired income, and as @Leo-ObolAssoc mentions 3 months is already a good amount of time.

Regardless, there has been enough discussion around it. So it’s ready to move.

I am an Obol Delegate with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

3 Likes
56

I agree with the intention of the proposal, however

“the operational burden from the Association and possibly other members of the Collective.”
I lean towards it being too high relative to the likely outcome.
majority of those who haven’t claimed likely had small allocations, the incentive is even lower now even if reopened.

1 Like
57

This is a good argument for not being afraid of a token dump with new claim, if there are not many people willing…
Unfortunately, it is difficult to check this without specific actions

58

I think this highlights one of the main problems with this proposal. Why would we spend time and resources on something for which we have seen no real demand ?

We haven’t seen any demand for such a thing in our Discord and this is the main place people head over to complain or make demands.

The proper procedure should be — and that’s worth for any business — to consider things for which there’s an actual ask, not to try and generate demand when there is none that can be clearly seen.

As a collective we should focus our efforts and funding to initiatives that bring value to our ecosystem for the future, to keep on growing together.

3 Likes
59

While I initially leaned towards supporting this proposal from the community POV, I also recognise that it comes with a cost, which @Leo-ObolAssoc outlined very well below.

I would say that Obol is an early-stage project where a maximal amount of resources should be directed to growth, and this detracts from it.

Setting a precedent now could leak into all future deadlines, creating a snowball effect of additional distraction for the team and less value for existing token holders. i.e., An extension is unfair to token holders who claimed within the airdrop deadline.

Hence, I would urge everyone to reconsider this point when voting.

5 Likes
60

Thanks for the proposal @cp0x, and thank you for the ping!

The proposal strikes a fair balance between inclusivity and procedural clarity. I support the intent to give genuine contributors a second opportunity to claim their tokens — especially given the realities of missed communications or unexpected personal circumstances.

That said, I believe it’s important to ensure that this flexibility also supports the long-term health of the ecosystem. If the claim window is extended, I would strongly suggest that any tokens claimed in this second round are automatically staked for a set period (for example, 6–9 months, open to discussion). This approach would reinforce participants’ alignment with the project and help reduce immediate sell pressure, while allowing claimants to take part in governance — whether by delegating their tokens or becoming active delegates themselves.

From my perspective, the original claim window was sufficiently publicized, and deadlines have their purpose. But ultimately, if the community votes to extend, enabling real contributors to receive and actively stake their rewards feels like a balanced and fair solution.

I appreciate the transparent process and the responsiveness to community feedback. Happy to support this proposal with these adjustments in mind.

3 Likes
61

Vote: Against
Rationale:

62

The proposal has come to an end
Thanks everyone who participated in our conversation and who moved this proposal to a vote.

As many expected, the proposal was rejected, but that doesn’t mean the effort wasn’t worthwhile.

What conclusions can be drawn:

  • Obol demonstrated that it has a structured DAO capable of putting proposals up for a vote — even when they are not particularly favored by the core team.
  • Community also showed a lack of empathy toward early contributors, even in cases where someone clearly added value. Community only willing to support their own interests, even though this was an opportunity to bring valuable contributors back into the ecosystem. Instead, the DAO chose to preserve the “closed circle” of current participants