I see this is the part where most of you have questions. It seems that there is agreement that stOBOL is useful as a concept but the rewards rate is where eyebrows get raised. I still strongly believe it is important to have some short of short-term incentives to kick off the program.
Would a 0.33% over 6 months (time-bound) be more acceptable for the community? Ensure we have adoption of stOBOL, secure governance, and we can reassess then to
change the rate
change the source of rewards (e.g. protocol revenue)
enable additional features such as delegates compensation and active delegate requirements to get the rewards (note that this proposal needs to pass first before we can vote on these additional features of the staking module)
This is why I didnât get too deep into the 1 % topic - we can easily change it later on, thatâs why weâre here and able to monitor closely. I suggest go with the initial 1 %. The advantage of an early higher rate is possibly more people are interested. If it doesnât work, cut it.
My TLDR is yes to stObol but unsure about issuance rate atm.
Maybe the modeling could be shared (or at least a summary) @Toma-ObolAssoc ?
If needed I believe the can could be kicked down the road to adjust later, but it could also potentially set a precedence, since it seems to be a new model (otherwise comparisons to other DAOs would also be helpful).
And to be clear, I think the % of issuance is helpful, but what seems more tangible and ultimately decisive for users is the resulting % reward rate (at whatever % staked rate).
Love the discussion here, but it seems only a few people - this might change over time, of course, and that should be encouraged!
But would be a reason to leverage the options available in the Tally staking in the future, to foster more governance participation, sensible delegations etc. It is sad but true that external incentives might be needed for it, and I am unsure of how to do it, but generally likely worth exploring imho.
From quick research: Tally staking seems very much in progress with very little details, with $UNI holders potentially being the guiana pigs and offering some more insights here.
Any more details appreciated when the time is right @coolhorsegirl
BTW, if you are old school like me and like email notifications (e.g. on new or unvoted expiring proposals) â Obol Collective Home page - bottom right âNotificationsâ links to the subscription page (rather than in the docs pointing to your Profile dropdown in top right
At karpatkey, we support this proposal as staking is a proven tool to reinforce governance participation and strengthen token utility. However, we share some concerns raised by @enti regarding the long-term sustainability of allocating 1% of the total OBOL supply annually. As enti mentioned, âwe should be very mindful of spendings, and more if they are recurrent.â While this incentive structure makes sense as an initial bootstrapping mechanism, over time, a more sustainable funding model could strengthen the DAOâs ability to support initiatives like this. Establishing treasury and asset management strategies could help ensure that governance rewards are funded in a way that does not overly deplete the treasury. Weâd be happy to contribute to discussions on how best to approach this.
Additionally, @Toma-ObolAssoc pointed out that stOBOL has the potential to become a foundational governance asset within the Obol Collective, similar to staked STRK in Starknet. Other governance staking models, such as Curveâs veCRV or Convexâs cvxCRV, have shown how staking mechanisms can create long-term alignment between token holders and protocol incentives. However, we have a few questions:
What are the plans for integrating stOBOL into DeFi protocols? Will this be led by the Collective, the Association, or another entity? A clear plan for how stOBOL will be introduced into lending markets, AMMs, or other DeFi infrastructure could add significant value to this proposal.
We appreciate the proposer bringing this initiative forward and would love to see a broader discussion on how staking incentives, treasury sustainability, and DeFi adoption could evolve over time. We support this proposal and look forward to participating in future governance discussions on how to optimize its impact.
We appreciate the effort put by @coolhorsegirl and @Toma-ObolAssoc to provide further details and enrich the conversation around OBOL staking.
We are generally supportive of governance staking and agree on the positive effect of offering claiming users with a yield source upfront. However, we share the concerns about dedicating a percentage of the token supply without a defined end or revision period for the program. Because of this, we would be more supportive of a time-bound incentive (quoted below) that encouraged staking to new users at the same time that enforced a timely DAO discussion and revision of the success and potential further improvements of governance staking.
Regarding the allocated amount to the program, as an initial trial. We think aiming for high single-digits / low double-digits for stakers is a good approach, and goes in line with our previous suggestion for governance staking in Rari DAO.
Sorry for being so insistent here, but 1% is $1.25M at the current Coinlist valuation. Iâm 100% for experimentation, but budgets do matter and we must do our best not to create a culture that splurges money on unproven/risky experiments.
I disagree, whatâs important always is to be intelligent with our spending. Whether we put $5 or $10M, the market will likely make sure to deposit enough tokens to reach whatever real APY equilibrium is fair at the time. At a certain point too much APY is just inflation that will be reflected on the token price instead.
Note that Iâm obviously exaggerating, throwing too much or too little money has different effects.
This is more reasonable, thank you. I would be much more comfortable supporting the proposal to some extent after those changes are reflected on the thread.
Staking seems to be something the Association wants and has been working on, and at this early stage of the project makes sense to support their vision and trust their judgment.
I must admit I remain skeptical about the impact of this, but most importantly curious and excited about experiments; and the new budget and 6-month testing period ensures that by the end of the year weâre able to look back and take action as needed.
The openess and willingness to engage and adapt from you @Toma-ObolAssoc and the whole Association is very much appreciated.
Hi all, thank you for all of your feedback! I have worked with the Obol Association to update this proposal based on community feedback.
Below are key changes:
Instead of allocating 1% of the OBOL token supply, this proposal now allocates 0.33% over six months to staking rewards.
Weâve expanded in this proposal on the utility of stOBOL, emphasizing its role as a liquid and yield-bearing token that auto-compounds staking rewards. stOBOL can be used across DeFi, meaning holders can staty engaged in governance while maintaining opportunities for restaking and yield generation.
To reduce sell pressure and drive staking adoption, airdrop recipients will have two options during the unlock phase:
Simple Unlock â Standard token unlock.
Unlock and Stake with One Click â Allows users to stake their OBOL immediately upon unlocking.
Does 0.33% within first 6 months means rate of 0.66% per year? So 33% reduction of initial proposal? And what APR would that translate to? I am confused, as I had in mind at 50% stake rate 8% APY which sounds good, but now reduced to 5.5%, which seems low to me.
[quote=âcoolhorsegirl, post:1, topic:312â]
Feb 23 - March 5th: Post proposal on forum for feedback, get approval from 4 top-100 delegates
[/quote]
Personal gut feeling would say achieved, but since itâs the premier proposal, how is that supposed to look logistically? My idea would be putting the modified proposal up and delegates reply to move ahead, or are we basing it on participation in thread? While active it seems not to encompass many delegates so far unfortunately.
Hey @zwanzger.eth, The Association proposes to allocate 0.33% of the total OBOL Token supply over the first six months. After this period, the community will be invited to review the rate and reach a consensus on any necessary adjustments.
In numerical terms, this represents a 66% reduction from the initial proposal, only for the first six months. After that, the Collective should be ready to reassess and adjust the percentage as needed.
~3% (15m) of the total supply is available to thousands of delegates for participation.
During the first opportunity to participate in the Collective, ~1% (6m) tokens across 51 delegates voted in RAF1 (noting voting was limited to the top 100 delegates at time of snapshot).
In the near term, ~5% (26m) of the total supply will be available for governance participation.
3% Airdrop claimed (out of 8.1%)
2% from Coinlist
0.2% from RAF1
âŚwith 95% immobilized in a comparable timeframe.
36.4% Treasury
12% Community Incentives
25.3% Investors
16.2% Team
5.1% Airdrop returned to Association
We can assume 53% of the total supply is available in some way to enter governance, or be used for other purposes. The remaining tokens are locked until a cliff for investors and teams.
Until the Collective has true decentralized control over a treasury or some sort of product/protocol related âbuttonsâ, experiments and incentives for participation are good imo.
Shifting 0.33% (1.6m) voting power from stale to active is also healthy for the young Collective.
The Collective should want to know more about managing the mechanismâs lifecycle.
How would a deactivation work if/when itâs needed?
Will the Collective have itâs own resources to leverage in the future if the Association does not decide to continue the incentives?
Additionally, this would be a more valuable proposal if it aligned closer with the stated motivations, if not now, at least in the future.
How do we make these incentives sticky to governance vs. just navigating the token unlock?
How can we use this type of mechanism to ensure a mobilized delegations vs. needing to rally thousands of delegates if/when needed?
There is no process here. The Obol Association will fund the initial amount in the staking rewards contract and once it is empty (after 6 months), new funds would need to be added as per a governance decision.
The Association would love to keep working with the Collective on these sort of decisions regardless. But the goal is to start a proper goal setting framework in the coming weeks and create working goups with potentially a budget to be able to work on these as smaller committees.
More on that soon. Hopefully to publish public goals for the Collective soon after the first voting cycle.
It is 0.33% of the total supply (i.e 0.33% x 5M) spread over 6 months.
My prediction is
20% circulating supply by the end of the 6 months
50% of it staked in stOBOL
That would result in
0.33% * 2 = 0.66% (to annualize and compute APR but will only be valid for 6 months)
spread over 20%*50% = 10% of the total supply
So the expected APR for those staking would be 0.66%/(100%/10%) = 6.6%
It is not âhighâ but probably high enough to incentivise people chosing that option over selling and to give us an idea of where we should put the bar without breaking the bank (0.33% of the supply is low overall)
I agree that simply delegating tokens isnât compelling enough for token holders. Providing access to financial benefits within DeFi through stOBOL is crucial and necessary.
In the current, long-depressed market conditions, token holders are driven to convert their assets into cash now, rather than waiting for future staking rewards. The âincentive to increase token quantityâ doesnât hold as much weight as immediate access to liquidity. Because in todayâs market, âvalueâ trumps âquantity,â and the market feels like a whirlpool constantly eroding that value.
Considering these conditions, if stOBOL unlocks access to DeFi, focusing on a âToken-Collateralized Instant Loan Systemâ as the initial application becomes vitally important to mitigate day 1 sell pressure.
Token holders understand that their tokens hold the potential for much greater financial returns when market conditions improve. However, bills are paid in cash today, inevitably leading some to sell, even if unwillingly. Therefore, providing a way for token holders to access cash without losing ownership of their tokens becomes crucial.
Given OBOLâs pioneering technology, I believe thereâs a strong potential for collaboration with established, high-liquidity protocols within the ecosystem.
I apologize if Iâve slightly deviated from the main topic. Iâm open to any criticism on this. However, I felt it was relevant to bring this up here, given the discussion around opening stOBOL to DeFi and in the interest of time before new OIPs are proposed.
StableLab is satisfied with the appropriate addressing of community feedback leading to adjustments in the original proposal, reducing the proposed budget to incentivize OBOL staking and setting the duration of the incentives in 6 months, leading to faster evaluation and discussion on the results of the program.
Well said and I agree to move to vote!
Imho the new parameters (0,33% for 6m) are a good balance on incentives to hodl tokens via staking, $stOBOL for ~6.6% APY, opening path to Defi liquidity and not spending too aggressively from treasury or set too high presedence.
It allows for gathering market data and adjust as needed with defined process, and the whole community discussion and adoption was a good start into Obol governance
After read the latest changes and suggestions from delegates as a delegate with sufficient voting power, I believe this proposal is ready to move to a on onchain vote.
Thanks @Eliza for the clarifications and @Toma-ObolAssoc for hearing the feedback and iterate quickly.
Apologies for joining the discussion late, just before the proposal moves to the on-chain vote.
I find the proposal somewhat lacking in detail regarding the staking mechanism. While it outlines the two options available at the time of the airdropâeither just claiming, or claiming and staking to receive stObolâseveral aspects remain unclear to me:
When stObol is sold, does the delegation to a specific delegate remain active? If so, can the new holder of stObol change the delegate?
If the delegate cannot be changed, this design could risk persistent concentration of voting power among a few delegates who received outsized support during the airdrop. However, even if delegation can be changed, Iâm unsure whether most stObol holders would actively change their delegate, which would still lead to persistent concentration of voting power.
Does delegation involve a locking period? If so, how long is the lock? If staking Obol requires a long lock-up period to make it liquid, stObol may lose its peg to Obolâsimilar to what has been observed with LSTs for veTokens that require extended lock-ups.
Finally, I donât understand how the proposed design would reduce selling pressure, as people could simply sell stObol, and the selling pressure from that would likely drag down the price of Obol as well.
Iâd appreciate some clarification on these points.
TBH I think weâre fixing this conversation too much on the resulting APY, but letâs remember this is inflation. For example, returns on Argentinian bonds averaged 23.25 percent from 2005-2025, this does sound juicy, but itâs pointless as inflation made the value of the peso go down to the point where the real APY is nothing close to the 23.25%.
On another hand, I think Iâve made my point clear on this thread already but I know the Association and Tally have been working on this for a while, and at the early stages of the Collective Iâll err on the side of aligning with their decision as on our current lack of understanding of Obol from multiple stakeholders involved. A lot of this will improve with the formation of working groups for the Collective.
@marc_blockshard is raising some very important questions and I hope @coolhorsegirl can help us understand the Tally Protocol.
Anyways, I feel very much ready to support this proposal moving to the next phase and see how much information can we get out of this.
Would a 0.33% over 6 months (time-bound) be more acceptable for the community? Ensure we have adoption of stOBOL, secure governance, and we can reassess then to
