OIP#7: Staking Rewards Extension & Transition Toward Programmatic Protocol Revenue Sharing

[Manadu]

I can only assume that this is due to exchange rate volatility. Although we will wait for an official response.

[Manadu]

I wonder why there was such a sharp jump and then an immediate rollback.

I took a snapshot on 11/01/2025 and the TVL was 728174 ETH

I was thrilled about it.

But today the figure is already 642201 ETH

[Leo-ObolAssoc]

Hey everyone, just wanted to jump in quickly to clarify a few things.

First off, yes, the ETH price has dropped quite a bit since the time those numbers were written. From roughly $4.5k down to around $3.2k, so that’s close to a 25–30% swing. that alone explains a big part of the change you see in TVL when it’s expressed in USD.

Second, on the bigger picture: TVL growth for Obol doesn’t move linearly. it usually comes in large jumps whenever new insto clusters or integrations go live. After each of these jumps, things tend to look “flat” for a bit, simply because the next big batch of stake is being prepared, tested, or committed but not yet activated on mainnet.

If you zoom out, you’ll see the long-term curve continues to look really strong. what’s visible on DeFiLlama today is only part of the story, and we’re also backfilling historical data there so people can see how much it’s actually grown over the past year. Once that’s live, the exponential trend will be much clearer.

In ETH terms, we’ve seen very limited exits. Just a few technical withdrawals, nothing structural. Participation remains high and growing.

So yes, short-term fluctuations in USD-denominated TVL are mostly a reflection of ETH price and data timing, not fundamentals. Zooming out, the direction of travel is clear: TVL and adoption are snowballing, and we’re only just getting started.

[Leo-ObolAssoc]

Gm guys, voting is live on Tally here Obol Collective | OIP#7 Staking Rewards Extension & Transition Toward Programmatic Revenue Sharing

[jensei]

I am in support of the staking rewards extension and am looking forward to the yield-backed accrual system to come!

[zwanzger.eth]

Hi @Leo-ObolAssoc ,
thanks for (trying to) clarify.
But tbh, your text is only another symptom of the problem imho.
I was always a critic about the widespread practice of quoting TVL in USD in bull markets, where basically all teams try to impress people/investors with rising numbers that are purely market-based upswings but not actual operational wins. On the flipside, nothing gets communicated when prices drop. To be fair, this is the same in retail tradfi when funds boast their % rise, but rarely the difference of outperformance to underlying benchmark. Few…
But now and here you did have the chance to communicate transparently some actual ETH numbers, but did not take it, unfortunately.
I tried to find out myself, but (again a wide spread problem in the space) did not find a historic chart.

1. So may I suggest to take that up and add e.g. here Mainnet - Obol DV Launchpad , where it shows 631,552 ETH staked.
2. And in the process check the consistency or add explanation, as the “Active validators” value on https://obol.org/ of 22,006 in my view does not add up with the above number, since 631,552 : 32 = 19,736 validators (and might be significantly lower since 32 Eth is the minimum validator balance). Since one cannot rely on each validator being 32 Eth anymore, I’d suggest to only quote Eth consistently, avoiding both USD and validator values.

That being said, I’ll still vote in favor of this proposal in a minute, as I feel the growth is not really a decisive argument (or rather >30% APY is not realistic/sustainable long-term anyway).

[zwanzger.eth]

Vote: For
Rationale: Despite Obol DV growth not being as great as sometimes presented (see OIP#7: Staking Rewards Extension & Transition Toward Programmatic Protocol Revenue Sharing - #26 by zwanzger.eth ), I’ll still vote in favor of this proposal (>30% APY is not realistic/sustainable long-term anyway). I see it as a sensible step towards mature and sustainable tokenomics.

Yours truely,
Freddy from Germany

Obol Governance Dashboard by Curia

[Max5593]

I support, I voted. Development!

[Curia]

Vote: For

Rationale:

@Curia

I support this proposal, and see it as a critical and well-reasoned bridge to Obol’s next phase of token utility. The two-month rewards extension provides essential continuity, which is vital for maintaining staker confidence and supporting ecosystem stability, especially following the recent Pendle integration.

More importantly, this proposal formalizes the necessary transition from pre-allocated emissions to a sustainable, revenue-driven “real yield” model. This shift is perfectly timed. As the team has noted, network TVS is not just growing, it’s “snowballing”, moving from $1.2B to $3.2B in just a few months. This impressive growth is already generating tangible protocol revenue (with current TVS, estimated at ~$1M/year from the 1% fee on validator rewards). This proposal provides the necessary runway to finalize the revenue-sharing mechanisms that will allow OBOL stakers to directly benefit from this real, compounding network success.

[kpk]

We voted FOR in this proposal, and the reasoning was stated in our previous message.

@kpk

We support this proposal. We view this as a thoughtful step toward a more mature, value-accruing token model.

Maintaining staking continuity during Obol’s transition to a revenue-sharing model is the right step to preserve network momentum and staker confidence. The proposed reduction in the reward rate demonstrates a responsible approach to emissions. At the same time, the two-month bridge period provides the time needed to design and implement sustainable, yield-backed mechanisms.

Obol’s rapid growth and the emergence of stOBOL integrations (e.g., Pendle) highlight the importance of aligning incentives with validator activity and real network revenue. This proposal ensures alignment without disrupting ongoing participation.

[aussiestake.eth]

Vote: For

Rationale: It seems like a logical step forward.

[Manadu]

I fully support you regarding settlements in ETH. This is the only way to see real performance.

[Manadu]

@zwanzger.eth

631,552 : 32 = 19,736

Regarding these calculations, not all clusters require 32 ETH. When LIdo+Obol launched, it required less than 3 ETH per key.

[atomicwhale]

Voted for.

I see this as a solid plan and demonstrates the first step of Obol as a protocol toward long term sustainability and stability.

[Phamtruongminh]

I support this proposal, the additional reward reduction is also acceptable, but in a more general plan I see we don’t have a marketing campaign, or we don’t have a need for marketing? The number of followers on X is still too small, in the long run we need a longer campaign to strengthen the token economy, currently on the price chart has bottomed out and most investors are losing money, so the staking strategy with a few % reward is clearly not effective for investors

[stefa2k]

@Manadu

Regarding these calculations, not all clusters require 32 ETH. When LIdo+Obol launched, it required less than 3 ETH per key.

A validator is a 32 ETH minimum. Lido + Obol had probably some collaboration where you can spinn up a validator with a 3 ETH bond to Lido, then Lido would fill up the validator with 32 ETH eventually.

[cp0x]

Lots of good arguments and figures, I’ve thought a lot about them and read other delegates’ reviews.

1. For stakers, retaining any income, even if it’s half as much, is good. It would be good to clarify (to avoid forcing all delegates to recalculate) that the payout reduction will be exactly halved – these values ​​will be calculated anyway, and hiding them in the proposal is meaningless.

2. However, during this time, the token price has fallen by more than 50% ($0.16 to $0.075), so talk about 35% APY being a lot means little to token holders, as they’ve lost more in token value.

3. However, the goal of staking isn’t just profit, but also delegation and management, as well as stability. Therefore, I support the decision to extend the staking program for 2-6 months (after all, a new program might not be implemented in 2 months), albeit in a reduced value.

4. I join the community in measuring the project’s income and success in terms of the underlying asset - ETH - as it is the foundation, and its value can vary greatly from month to month.

[PGov]

We voted For

We see this as am important step to get to Obol’s next phase of token utility. A two-month rewards extension provides staker reward continuity, and should allow for steady inflows/outflows.

A move from pre-allocated emissions to more sustainable, revenue-driven model is also particularly interesting.

[Manadu]

Oh yes. I see what you mean. You’re absolutely right.

[AlexIT]

Vote: For
Rationale:
I support the extension of the staking program — it’s a logical step to maintain growth momentum and community trust. It’s great to see the team moving toward a real revenue-based model instead of just continuing token emissions. This shows the protocol’s maturity and a responsible approach toward long-term sustainability.