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.