We wanted to share an important update regarding governance, staking, and the broader direction of the Obol Collective.
Tally Shutdown & Staking Interface
As some of you may have seen, Tally is winding down. This means the UI they hosted for us (covering governance and staking) will no longer be available.
It’s important to clarify that all underlying smart contracts remain live and fully functional.
If you currently have OBOL staked (via stOBOL), you can unstake at any time.
To support this:
-
We’ve added a step-by-step guide in the docs explaining how to unstake directly on-chain
-
Over the coming days, we will also deploy a lightweight UI to make this process much simpler (no need to manually interact with contracts)
Staking Status
As previously communicated, staking is no longer incentivized and is not being actively supported as a core token utility.
-
No new rewards or incentives are being distributed
-
Existing positions remain safe and can be exited at any time
Governance Update
With the shutdown of Tally, recent ecosystem shifts, and an evolving regulatory landscape, we’ve decided to formally pause governance for now.
This includes:
-
Token House activity
-
Delegate-based voting
-
The Delegate Reputation Score (DRS) system
We still strongly believe in the need for governance for Obol. However, rather than continuing with a model that no longer fits, we want to take the time to design something that:
-
Reflects how the Obol actually operates
-
Enables effective execution and coordination
-
Aligns stakeholders with meaningful participation
-
Is built with long-term regulatory clarity in mind
Several factors led us to pause governance and redesign it rather than continue with the current model.
Structural Challenges in DAO Governance
Structural challenges across DAO governance have become harder to ignore: low participation, recurring quorum risk, over-reliance on a small number of highly active delegates, and a growing gap between formal votes and actual execution. Even large DAOs have openly acknowledged these issues.
For example, Uniswap governance recently noted that only a small subset of delegates meaningfully determines outcomes and that the absence of even one large voter can put quorum at risk, creating systemic fragility and governance gridlock.
Other projects have gone further and paused or redesigned their governance entirely: Jupiter suspended DAO voting to focus on execution and rework its governance tools, and Scroll later paused its governance structure while redesigning the process.
More broadly, recent industry reporting has described the retreat from token-vote governance at several major projects as a response to dysfunction, “governance theater,” and the need for more accountable execution models.
Tally Shutdown & Governance Tooling Limitations
Tally’s wind-down matters not only because it removes the interface that supported our governance and staking flows, but because it highlights a broader reality: the current governance tooling stack remains fragile and still feels early. In Obol’s current setup, the Governance Portal and related interfaces were a core part of how token holders delegated, voted, and interacted with staking, while the broader process depended on a structured Token House cycle and governance administration by the Obol Association. In practice, that means the interface is only one layer; the deeper question is whether the governance process itself is mature enough, sustainable enough, and well aligned enough with how the Collective actually operates today.
Evolving Regulatory Landscape (SEC & CFTC Guidance while waiting for Clarity)
While we’re waiting for the Clarity Act, the joint SEC/CFTC guidance explicitly says the agencies are trying to draw clearer lines between securities and non-securities and that the new interpretation is meant to be a first step toward a clearer federal framework. It also emphasizes that crypto-assets are assessed based on their underlying economic reality and on the Howey test, including whether holders are led to expect profits from the essential managerial efforts of others.
A crypto asset is less likely to be a security where it operates as part of a functional network, does not convey rights to income or enterprise value, and where any rewards arise from protocol-level participation rather than the managerial efforts of others. Governance features may exist, but are not determinative; the key question is whether the asset reflects participation in a network or an investment in a business.
We also need to await the outcome of the passage of the Clarity Act through the US Senate and see what emerges from that process.
Why This Means a Pause for Obol Governance
For Obol, that means it would be premature to keep pretending the current model is the right long-term answer. Our existing design was delegate-based, portal-dependent, and ultimately still routed implementation through the Obol Association. That was a useful early-stage model, but it is not yet the governance system we want to scale with. Pausing now gives us room to design governance that is better suited to Obol specifically: more credible in practice, more tightly connected to real execution and stakeholder responsibility, and better aligned with the direction regulatory guidance is taking. The history of proposals, votes, and discussions remains live and publicly accessible, but the next phase needs to be more intentional than simply preserving the old rails.
Transparency & Historical Governance Data
While governance is paused, all historical activity remains publicly accessible.
In addition to discussions on the forum, you can explore past proposals, voting activity, and delegate participation through:
These tools provide a full view of previous governance cycles, including what was proposed, voted on, and how decisions were made.
What Comes Next
We are actively working on the next iteration of governance.
This will take time, and we want to approach it thoughtfully rather than rushing into a new model.
In the meantime, the forum remains open and active. We strongly encourage everyone to share ideas, start discussions, challenge assumptions and help shape what governance should look like for Obol.
We’ll continue to share updates as things evolve.
Thanks to everyone who has participated in governance so far, your contributions have been instrumental in getting us here.