Proposal to redistribute the non claimed OBOL token among the community

Token House
1

Proposal Title:

Redistribution of Unclaimed Tokens to Existing Claimants

Status:

Draft

Proposal Type:

Governance - Token Distribution Adjustment

Abstract:

This proposal suggests redistributing approximately 50% of unclaimed Obol tokens to users who have already claimed their tokens. This approach aims to reward active community members, improve token liquidity, and ensure a fairer distribution of tokens within the ecosystem.

Motivation:

The Obol token claiming period has ended, yet roughly half of the total token supply remains unclaimed. These unclaimed tokens create potential economic inefficiencies, reduce liquidity, and may lead to perceptions of unfairness among those who actively participated in the claiming process.

Redistributing the unclaimed tokens to existing claimants addresses these issues by incentivizing early supporters, reinforcing trust within the community, and promoting a more equitable token distribution.

There are no conflicts of interest associated with this proposal.

Specifications:

Redistribution Mechanism:

All unclaimed tokens (~50% of total supply) will be redistributed on a pro-rata basis to wallets that have already claimed tokens. This means each claimant will receive additional tokens proportional to their share of the total claimed amount.

Calculation Method:

  1. Identify the number of tokens claimed by each individual claimant.
  2. Calculate the total tokens claimed across all participants.
  3. Determine each claimant’s percentage of total claimed tokens.
  4. Allocate each user the same percentage from the unclaimed token pool.

Example:

If Claimant A has claimed 100 tokens out of a total 1,000 claimed tokens (10% share), and 500 tokens are unclaimed, Claimant A receives 10% of 500 = 50 additional tokens.

Transparency and Verification:

  • All calculations will be publicly verifiable.
  • A full breakdown of redistribution data will be published before execution.
  • Community input and feedback will be incorporated during a designated review period.

Security Considerations:

  • The redistribution does not affect wallet security or introduce new attack vectors.
  • No smart contract upgrades or on-chain interactions from users are required.
  • All execution will occur via a secure distribution mechanism approved by core contributors.

Impact Summary:

  • Enhanced Community Engagement: Rewards active participants, fostering loyalty and participation.
  • Fairer Distribution: Reinforces trust in the system by fairly allocating unused resources.
  • Improved Liquidity: Returns tokens to circulation rather than leaving them idle.
  • Potential Positive Price Effect: Concentration among engaged holders may stabilize or increase token value.

Action Plan:

Phase 1: Approval & Community Review (Week 1–2)

  • Finalize calculations and share methodology.
  • Collect and address community feedback.

Phase 2: Audit & Technical Validation (Week 3)

  • Validate the redistribution logic and wallet data.
  • Secure approval from Obol core contributors and/or designated validators.

Phase 3: Execution (Week 4)

  • Distribute unclaimed tokens based on final dataset.
  • Notify all eligible recipients via on-chain message or supported channels.

Post-Distribution:

  • Publish final report and analytics.
  • Host a community AMA to address remaining questions.

Contingency Plan:

  • If technical or legal blockers arise, tokens will remain held in a transparent address until resolution.
  • Alternate plans may be developed with community input.

Conclusion:

This proposal recommends a transparent, fair redistribution of unclaimed Obol tokens to users who have already claimed. Doing so strengthens the community, rewards engagement, and improves token utility.

We kindly ask the Obol community to support this initiative and vote in favor of this redistribution proposal.

Feedback, questions, and improvements are warmly welcomed.

18 Likes
2

Thanks @Ab0lfazl79 for your proposal, I think it is generally good to have an active community with various proposals, and discussing the point you are raising is valuable, I believe.

However, I do not share your concerns, to be honest:

Reduced Liquidity: I believe the key to liquidity will lay in liquidity pools and active market making, and believe the collective already has plans regarding these.

Unfair Distribution Perception: I would argue that it is equally likely to see this suggested change in distribution as unfair by changing the rule after the fact, and potentially cementing the current community/distribution “whales”.

Community Engagement Risks: Again, allowing the existing claimants to “double-dip” could make the community less attractive to newcomers, and growth is super important still.

Hence I believe that returning these tokens to the treasury and in turn distributing them to community contributors via future (retroactive) grant rounds, staking rewards and rewards for active governance participation is the better way - and I believe all the mentioned ideas are at least already planned if not already in the works.

3 Likes
5

I’d like to share my concerns about the proposal to redistribute unclaimed tokens. While the idea aims to “boost liquidity” and “reward active participants”, I believe this approach might create more problems than it solves. Here are the main points:

  1. Quick Sales Pressure:
    Distributing tokens right after the TGE might lead people to sell them quickly for a fast profit, which could drop the token’s value and hurt the project over time.
  2. Centralization Risk:
    Awarding extra tokens exclusively to early claimants could lead to a concentration of holdings. This may shift power to a small group, undermining the project’s goal of broad, decentralized community participation.
  3. Loss of Future Resources:
    Unclaimed tokens can be valuable for future projects, new initiatives, or partnerships. Using them now could remove important resources that the project needs for future growth.

In short, I believe we should look for alternative ways to strengthen the community without risking the project’s future.

7 Likes
6

I do not support this proposal because it’s -EV instead of +EV.

I’m agree with the point of view of @keynodes. This proposal represents a short-term win for current claimers but a long-term loss for The Collective.

What if, instead of redistributing the unclaimed amount, it’s used as a kind of “Buyback and LP”?

Rather than giving away more free tokens, the unclaimed amount could be used to create long-term incentives for holders, delegates and other stakeholders. For example, the fees collected by the contract holding the LP position could be redistributed monthly. Recipients could be selected retroactively based on contributions, holding duration, amount, how stOBOL or OBOL is used, etc.

Of course, this idea needs to be refined, but I believe it offers a more sustainable long-term solution. It creates predictable outcomes based on proactive behavior, encouraging stakeholders to align with Obol’s goals.

4 Likes
7

The fact that distributing unclaimed tokens to other users can have disadvantages cannot be ignored, but in this case and in this situation, we must keep in mind that this also has positive points. Let me mention a few.
The project proves that it respects its early adopters very much and values ​​them. Many other projects have done this and there have been no problems at all.
Keep in mind that these tokens do not have a significant impact on the market or price because these tokens were supposed to reach the user, meaning that they were in the hands of the users anyway and if they wanted to, they could sell them.
Doing this is not going to increase or decrease the supply, meaning that the project wanted to give the number to the users and distribute it, and the same thing is happening now.
The fact that the tokens are not distributed to too many people is actually a positive point.
Keep this in mind too. If the treasury and many other options that you mention are good, yes, but you should not count on the token that is for users, it should be calculated from other tokens and set aside. These tokens have already been calculated for users, so it seems very logical that they will reach the active early users who have worked hard for the project.|
Giving unclaimed tokens to active and existing users and those who claim them is not only not bad, but also a right and fair move.
And not giving it will only upset users and ruin your project because the token that was the user’s right has been taken to the treasury and there is nothing else for it.

2 Likes
8

Hello friends!

I remember we already raised this topic in the chat about a month ago. My opinion remains the same - I think this is a great idea. There should be more tokens in circulation. Most of the people who will receive the drop are active validators or just early/active participants in the project.
We all know that Obol initially did not promise participants rewards and tokens, which is why most of those who received the token are people who are interested in the project, interested in its future and will always be interested in being an OBOL token holder.

Everything said is just my personal opinion collected on the basis of communication and feedback about the project in a large community of noders.

3 Likes
9

This proposal is a strong and timely step that fully deserves support. Redistributing unclaimed tokens among those who have already claimed theirs is not just a fair decision — it’s a logical move that strengthens the foundation of trust within the community.
Let’s be clear: if a participant was truly interested in the project and followed its development, they would not have missed the claim window. Those who ignored or missed this opportunity are not demonstrating active engagement and likely don’t contribute real value to the ecosystem. Meanwhile, those who claimed on time, keep up with updates, join discussions, and help grow the project — they are the ones shaping a living, resilient Obol community. Supporting these participants is an investment in the project’s sustainable future.
Moreover, this redistribution boosts the efficient use of tokens: instead of “freezing” half the resource, it brings it back into circulation, increasing liquidity, engagement, and potentially helping price stability in the long term. This makes the ecosystem not only fairer but also healthier from an economic perspective.
The technical simplicity of implementation, absence of security risks, open methodology, and transparent calculations — all these points speak in favor of this proposal. It’s refreshing to see an initiative that’s not only ethically and economically sound but also thoughtfully designed from an execution standpoint.

I strongly support this initiative. This is a perfect example of how decentralized communities should operate — by rewarding participation, transparency, and continued engagement. Thank you for a great proposal!

1 Like
12

I think this is a fair and thoughtful proposal that sends the right signal to the community.

Redistributing unclaimed tokens to those who already engaged with the protocol makes sense — not just from a numbers perspective, but in terms of values. It’s about recognizing and rewarding those who showed up early and contributed.

First off, this approach reinforces positive behavior.
It’s a clear statement of fairness: if you take part and support the project, your contribution is acknowledged and rewarded.

Second, a proportional distribution keeps things transparent and balanced.
No one’s being excluded — it simply gives priority to the people already helping to move the ecosystem forward.

Third, there’s also an efficiency angle. Unclaimed tokens sitting idle don’t contribute much, but redistributed tokens can be put to work by those who are already active in the community.

For anyone unsure, I’d say:
Long-term sustainability doesn’t come from passive holding. It comes from involvement, participation, and alignment with the protocol’s goals.
This isn’t about taking away — it’s about reinforcing a fair and forward-looking model.

If we’re serious about building strong, decentralized governance, then this kind of proposal is a step in the right direction.

13

Preamble

My thoughts put into writing on this OIP in my posts will be mostly critical to make it easier and faster to read, please take no offense if I sound too direct and/or trimmed down. To fully understand the perspectives of the proposer and agrees I’d be happy to receive more information on this matter.

Review

Motivation

According to discord you received a bronze NFT and therefore be able to claim OBOL token yourself, which would be a conflict of interest.

This conflict of interest should be outlined clearly.

How many tokens would you receive if this proposal passes?

Security Considerations:

It introduces a lower degree of decentralization of token distribution which is not favorable for a DAO and opens attack vectors.

Impact Summary

A wallet able to claim tokens doesn’t necessarily cause an active participant. It’s also questionable to me how this could increase the loyalty and participation of token holders. Can you please elaborate more on this?

Please explain how more tokens to the same amount of people would stabilize or even increase the token value.

Other thoughts

In general, the proposal states assertions without providing substance. It often demands a “fair” distribution, but “fair” means “impartial and just, without favouritism or discrimination” or “treating everyone equally and justly, without favoritism or bias”. Right now, I’d see this proposal – which aims a fair distribution – to be less fair than following the already laid out rules of the token airdrop.

I’m happy to read your thoughts about my feedback and learn more about this proposal!

4 Likes
14

Before diving into concerns, thank you for your contribution to the governance process and proposing the first community OIP.

1. Proposal Premature While Claiming Window Is Open

The claiming process is still ongoing (open until 24 April 2025, 16:00 UTC) — redistributing tokens now would contradict the existing timeline and expectations. Retroactive changes undermine trust in governance and perceived fairness.

Voting on redistribution before the claim window closes is inappropriate. It’s unclear how many will still claim in the remaining days, especially ahead of TGE — preemptive redistribution could disenfranchise late but legitimate participants.

2. Better Uses for Unclaimed Capital

As laid out in OIP#3 , the Obol Collective aims to establish a grants framework — more structured, long-term allocation of resources. Redistribution to current holders doesn’t align with strategic goals like incentivizing development, governance participation, or ecosystem expansion.

3. Favoring Short-Term Over Long-Term Vision

This proposal risks encouraging short-termism: recipients may immediately dump tokens post-TGE. Instead, Obol should “play long-term games”, preserving these tokens for future contributors, builders, and strategic initiatives.

4. Technical & Timing Constraints

The proposed Unlock + Stake flow for TGE is already complex and time-sensitive. Adding another technical process now (redistribution logic, verification, execution) is not feasible to implement safely before TGE, unless we delay it.

5. Unsubstantiated Claims

Arguments about “liquidity improvement” or “price stabilization” are speculative. No evidence provided to suggest this redistribution will lead to meaningful positive price impact or deeper engagement.

10 Likes
17

Thanks for your proposal. While distributing unclaimed tokens proportionally among claimers, we think this would lead to more selling pressure and doesn’t necessarily align with onboarding more active and committed community members nor increasing liquidity for the OBOL token.

If claimers are aligned with the OBOL vision and they want to become holders and actively engage, they are already rewarded for doing so via Tally’s governance staking contract.

We think a better use of these funds would be to return them to the Treasury and fund initiatives that are better aligned with the proposed SQUAD goals.

1 Like
18

hey everyone, i just wanted to chime in and say I’m fully in support of this proposal to redistribute the non claimed OBOL tokens among the community! i think it’s a fantastic way to reward active members who are contributing to the Obol Collective’s growth and decentralization mission. It also feels like a fair move to keep the ecosystem thriving, especially for those of us who are staking, participating in governance, or just helping spread the word.

19

Redistributing unclaimed tokens to those who are already involved makes a lot more sense than just letting them sit idle or going to new random recipients.

Would be good to clarify how the snapshot of claimants will be taken—will it be based strictly on the original claim period or is there flexibility for any late manual claims before distribution?

Also, any thought on whether this could create legal/tax implications for recipients getting “unexpected” airdrops? Just thinking ahead.

1 Like
20

I think it would be better to spend these tokens on additional stimulation of DV clusters.

1 Like
21

It’s a great idea to redistribute the unclaimed tokens to active participants. However, i think if the unclaimed tokens were burned it will reduce the TS which would result in more value.

22

TLDR I missed the claim cutoff, but don’t waste those bags on greedy actors. Focus on growth + adoption.

I missed the claim window of the airdrop which is heartbreaking. I found out yesterday when trying to delegate my position to Karpatkey, an entity I have trusted for an extended period of time with regards to ecosystem management. Ultimately while I wish the claim window could be extended, I understand there is technical overhead in order to do so; therefore my expectations are low in regards to an extension.

With that being said, a proposal like this is simply predatory. The tokens which were not claimed should for certain be used in a way which stimulates growth either via cluster or node operator incentives. Utilizing an allocation to cover any overhead of the protocol/DAO is also reasonable but giving more bags out to the community is not going to help in my opinion. I do not expect majority of wise voters to support further diluting themselves and the legitimacy of the OBOL protocol. I would argue it is even worth escrowing incentives to some degree similar to what Euler does depending on the format of those programs OBOL pursues.

1 Like
23

I’m against this proposal. If folks couldn’t claim in 90 days, that’s not the community we’re looking for. And let’s be real—those tokens would get dumped the second they hit wallets.

1 Like
25

A recent proposal on this topic was submitted on Tally that unfortunately does not meet the minimum submission requirements as defined in the governance rules:

:pushpin: Requirement: Any proposal must receive explicit approval from at least 4 Top 100 delegates prior to being submitted onchain.

:link: Proposal in question: Tally Proposal

As this proposal was submitted without the required endorsements, it will be considered invalid and will likely be cancelled on Tally in the coming hours.

:stop_sign: We kindly ask delegates not to cast any votes, as the outcome will not be enforceable in any case.

This is a good opportunity to remind everyone to carefully follow the proposal lifecycle and approval flow before triggering an onchain vote. If in doubt, feel free to reach out beforehand.

Thank you for your attention and your continued participation.

3 Likes