Migrating Unclaimed $ODOS Retroactive Rewards to Treasury

Treasury
1

1. Proposal Summary

This proposal outlines a plan to reclaim all unclaimed $ODOS tokens from the retroactive rewards distribution back into the DAO treasury. The retroactive claim period began on December 20th, 2024, and we propose setting a final claim deadline of July 20th, 2025 (7 months from launch). After this date, all unclaimed tokens will be returned to the Odos treasury.

Roughly 22% of eligible tokens (representing approximately 250mm tokens, or $1.4mm USD at today’s price) remain unclaimed. Reclaiming these tokens will strengthen the DAO’s treasury position and allow for more effective management of the token supply and inflation.

The reclaimed tokens will be used to support community initiatives, ecosystem liquidity, and future token utility enhancements as directed by governance.

2. Rationale

A 7-month claim period provides ample time for eligible recipients to claim their tokens while ensuring efficient treasury management. Data from Flipside Crypto shows that the majority of claims occur within the first few weeks after an airdrop, with claim rates significantly declining thereafter.

Unclaimed tokens represent underutilized protocol assets that could better serve the community by being reintegrated into the treasury. This action aligns with our goal to maintain sustainable tokenomics and responsible resource management for DAO assets. Similar action has been taken by other notable treasuries such as SAFE, Arbitrum, Osmosis, Maple, and more as a way to bolster treasury operations, limit outstanding supply, and increase transparency.

3. Implementation Plan

  • July 20th, 2025 will be clearly communicated as the final date for claiming $ODOS retroactive rewards.
  • An active communication campaign will be initiated immediately across all DAO channels to inform potential claimants of the deadline.
  • On July 20th, 2025, the claim function in the rewards contract will be disabled.
  • All unclaimed tokens will be transferred to the Odos treasury multisig.

4. Benefits

  • Bolsters Treasury: Increases DAO-controlled assets for future initiatives (liquidity, community, etc.).
  • Supply Management: Improves clarity and transparency around the circulating supply of ODOS tokens.
  • Resource Optimization: Redirects unclaimed tokens to productive use for the benefit of active community members, such as protocol owned liquidity or other liquidity initiatives

5. Next Steps

  • Upon approval, the DAO will begin notifying the community about the July 20th deadline.
  • Technical team will prepare for the claim function shutdown.
  • As the loyalty program rewards have been being disbursed from the retroactive rewards wallets as well (given the team’s technical prioritization of cross-chains swaps), additional tokens will need to be migrated from the designated loyalty rewards wallet to the retroactive rewards wallet to cover the difference. Moving forward, the development team will aim for a technical update that allows the loyalty rewards to be disbursed from the loyalty rewards wallet.
  • A post-reclamation report will be shared with the community detailing the outcome.
2

Makes a lot of sense to do this.

Might extend the deadline a little bit so you can do some proper communication on X, discord etc. and then give people some time to claim.

I would give them 1-2 months after the initial communication on X.

2 Likes
3

Thanks mate! Yeah we were thinking about this, but tbh people have had 6 months to claim, which has been longer than most airdrops. We’ll make a lot of noise in the next few weeks to remind folks to claim, but if they don’t then that’ll be their decision.

1 Like
4

This is a great proposal, Nuria. Just that the Date needs to be set atleast 2-3 months from the time of announcement.

Eliteness.eth ODOS Delegate will vote in favor once the Grace Period is increased to a realistic timeframe.

We should also get the airdrop listed with Bankless and “Etherscan Cards” to make sure everyone who was entitled gets one last push to claim their ODOS rewards for supporting Odos in its Early Days!

Recouping unspent ODOS is a great step in bolstering the DAO Treasury for future Growth proposals!

ODOS holders can choose eliteness.eth as your delegate on Snapshot for Odos DAO if you align with our vision!

1 Like
5

In the last 24 hours, 64 million $ODOS tokens have left the treasury wallet, with more transfers occurring previously. There have been no reports or disclosures regarding the destination or purpose of these funds.

This is the first proposal in the Treasury category, yet substantial treasury activity has already taken place without any prior proposals, reporting, or community oversight. This demonstrates a lack of established commitment to transparency in treasury operations by DAO members with administrative power over the treasury.

The urgency to migrate unclaimed tokens back to the treasury, especially in light of recent large withdrawals, raises concerns about the immediate need for funds. If the treasury is seeking funds for imminent use, a detailed report should be required outlining exactly how the funds will be spent before any migration occurs.

If there is no urgent need for these funds, the DAO should consider implementing a mechanism to lock the migrated tokens for a period of time to be discussed and agreed upon by the community. This would help ensure stability in the $ODOS token’s price.

The proposal mentions liquidity initiatives, but there is no clear understanding of how these initiatives have impacted the token and the community. Adding too much liquidity creates excessive selling pressure, potentially harming the token price. The DAO should research and communicate the potential effects of such actions on token price and market dynamics. A report on all current liquidity positions across both DEX and CEX should be required to provide transparency and inform the community.

By seizing unclaimed rewards, the DAO will reduce the number of potential token holders and voting participants, which will affect the decentralization of governance. This should be mentioned in the proposal and taken into consideration.

Importantly, this is one of the rare opportunities for the community to change the status quo regarding treasury management and transparency. These issues must be addressed before agreeing to move any funds; otherwise, there is a risk that the DAO could lose control over the migrated tokens after the proposal is accepted.

For these reasons, I suggest denying this proposal until DAO members with administrative power over the treasury demonstrate a clear and ongoing commitment to transparency, including:

  • Full reporting of all past and future treasury transfers
  • Research into the impact of liquidity initiatives on $ODOS price
  • And, depending on the urgency, either a detailed spending report or a mechanism to lock migrated funds to ensure token price stability

Addressing these points will help build trust and ensure that treasury actions align with the interests of all DAO members.

1 Like
6

Thanks for the thoughts. Allow me to shed some light on this. As you know, $ODOS is listed on several different exchanges, and being listed on exchanges require capital for both exchange inventory management and market making. This is why typically projects have about 5%+ of their total token supply allocated specifically to exchanges / market making. Previous operations have been conducted for ensuring market making / exchange listing operations as well - these are operational in nature and time sensitive. Hence once $Odos is listed on an exchange or with a market maker, it makes sense for the DAO team to carry out the remaining operations related to that without submitting a proposal for each of them. Otherwise, we’d be inundated with proposals and we wouldn’t be able to respond timely to needs of market makers or exchanges, which could result in liquidity crunches, heightened price volatility, or worse.

There is no immediate need for funds for the DAO, and especially for the company as a whole given the recent fundraise. We will be publishing a DAO transparency dashboard this week where users can keep track of the different DAO wallets, token holdings, and more (just keep in mind the DAO treasury is different from the Devco treasury). The fact is, the tokens have been out there for users to claim for 6 months. This has gone on for longer than most projects, and to protect the existing token holders, we feel it better for the DAO to turn these assets into effective working capital, or at the very least, to collect so as to prevent selling pressure for our loyal community.

We aim to submit proposals of liquidity initiatives for discussion here, and collectively vote on the best outcome, but I don’t believe that should prevent the DAO from reclaiming the airdrop tokens first. Especially as the goal is to protect token holders from sell pressure (as we both know, most of the folks claiming the airdrop will just sell, as airdrop farmers often do). So for the best interest of the community and to protect the existing token holders, I would propose moving ahead with this proposal - after which we can structure appropriate liquidity initiatives.

We are completely aligned in terms of additional transparency for the community in terms of DAO treasury, and are putting together the tools to show just that.

1 Like
7

The folks who haven’t claimed their tokens for 6 months might never do so. Their unclaimed tokens are effectively out of circulation. If we return them to circulation through liquidity initiatives, the increased token supply will decrease the token’s price. I believe this doesn’t prevent selling pressure; it actually creates it.

2 Likes
8

I totally understand where you’re coming from. We’re definitely not in any hurry to part with any $ODOS tokens. Our stance is firmly that the project is significantly undervalued, especially relative to competitors and peers. Hence, our focus is to ensure that the token is able to be traded fluidly and without restriction - thereby enabling the market to reprice the token as it sees fit. And, in the meantime, to aid in removing any possible avenues of sell pressure from the token.

The alternative is just to let the airdrop remain open indefinitely - this actually isn’t a common practice in crypto, and for good reason. Doing this actually sends the wrong message. For example, people who have left the community and the project for a year can then come back, claim tokens, and reap the rewards of what the community has accomplished in the last year? I personally believe this would be quite unfair to the rest of the folks here.

1 Like
9

As I understand it, for the past six months I have claimed rewards for each epoch from the same contract. What will happen to the loyalty program if all the tokens from the contract in question are transferred to the treasury?

If the proposal does not mean transferring all the tokens (approximately 250 million), but only the retroactive rewards, then how much is that amount? The proposal definitely needs to include that information.

Also, if the DAO continues to reward users according to the loyalty program, why can’t we leave the tokens in the contract for future rewards? It will need a refill anyway when it runs out of reward tokens. The DAO isn’t desperate for funds; we’re definitely not in any hurry. Let’s close the claim for retroactive rewards, but not touch the remaining funds.

1 Like
10

So it’s two different contracts actually. Moving the unclaimed retroactive rewards back to the treasury will not impact the loyalty program rewards. That comes out of a different wallet and contract.

We didn’t include the exact number of tokens because it’s a moving target - hence why we said roughly ~22% of the rewards from the original airdrop. But we can update the proposal with an as of date. So as of today it’s about 246mm tokens.

The loyalty program, which is separate, has about 210mm tokens. Those will remain untouched.

1 Like
11

If I am reading the blockchain data correctly, the contract with 210mm tokens that I found has not made a single outgoing transfer of $ODOS tokens. Which contract are you referring to?

1 Like
12

Regarding being inundated with proposals: It is not an all-or-nothing situation; there is always a middle ground. If we cannot propose getting Odos listed on an exchange where it is already listed, someone could submit a proposal to ask whether Odos should remain listed on that exchange and explain what it takes. If the proposal passes, it would grant approval to conduct any necessary transfers to the exchange. A single proposal is not inundation, but it would be appreciated.

1 Like
13

Hey Pomme, I want to respond directly to your concerns, especially the points you raised around transparency and the importance of structure.

You’re absolutely right that trust isn’t something we can assume, it has to be built. And for a DAO, structure is one of the pillars that helps makes that trust sustainable over time. Your comment about the need for clear reporting and thoughtful stewardship of the treasury it’s important and I agree that, if the community is going to delegate any level of discretion, it has to be within a system that guarantees accountability and visibility.

That’s exactly what we’re trying to address, not just with this proposal, but with the broader effort to bring more clarity, transparency, and coordination to how the DAO operates.

Over the past few months we’ve been:

  • Defining the full proposal lifecycle
  • Clarifying governance roles and processes
  • And building support tools like the treasury dashboard (which we’ll be making public today9

We know this proposal should’ve come earlier. We think a 6-month claim period is more than reasonable, but to be fair this proposal should have been put forward months ago. That’s on us and I take full responsibility for that delay.

So what I propose is a final 1month window starting from the day this proposal is approved. I think it gives us time enough to properly inform the community across all channels, and it ensures that, in total, users will have had 7 full months to claim their tokens, which I think is quite reasonable.

Just to clarify: this proposal only applies to unclaimed $ODOS from the retroactive rewards distribution, which started on December 20, 2024. It does not affect the ongoing Loyalty Program.
I also want to make clear that isn’t about sidestepping governance, but about putting the right foundations in place so governance can actually work. If there are better ways to do that, we’re always open to them.

We’d love to hear any proposals or suggestions from the community on how to keep improving these foundations as governance is stronger when more people contribute to it, so I encourage everyone to submit proposals they think they can help in any way to make this a better, more transparent and fair DAO.

Thanks again for the thoughtful discussion, let’s keep it going!

14

Thanks for the feedback, Eliteness! I hear you on the timing, and while we proposed this because we believe the 6month window was already fair, I fully recognize this should’ve been put forward earlier to create awareness and give the community more time. That’s on me.

To make up for it, we’re now suggesting a 1-month grace period starting from the moment the proposal is approved. That gives us time to communicate it properly across all channels and brings the total claim period to a full 7 months, which feels like a reasonable timeline. I’ll be updating the proposal shortly.

15

Thank you, Nuriag, for the detailed response to my concerns. I understand that the proposal does not intend to affect the ongoing Loyalty Program, but I would like to see information on how it will ensure that the program is not impacted.

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but the rewards for the ongoing Loyalty Program are coming from the contract with retroactive rewards, which was never refilled. Migrating all the tokens from the contract will make it impossible to claim rewards for all the epochs, which will certainly affect the ongoing Loyalty Program.

Additionally, the treasury will be short compared to the true number of unclaimed retroactive rewards, because some of the tokens have already been used for the Loyalty Program. Will the treasury be compensated for the difference? If so, where will the tokens come from? I believe this topic should be included in the proposal.

1 Like
16

You are correct in that the ongoing Loyalty Program is coming out of the contract with retroactive rewards - this is primarily because the team has been prioritizing development of cross chain swaps and the claiming process was already working smoothly as is. The wallet with the 210mm tokens is earmarked for the Loyalty Program, and would be used to top up the funnel to ensure that the loyalty program remains active. This is on us for not marking this clearly, but we wanted to hit our goal and commitment of pushing out cross chains swaps sooner rather than later.

Yes, the treasury will be compensated for the difference. The treasury would take the difference (which is only about ~1M tokens) from the Loyalty Program wallet (the wallet with about 210mm tokens). Very happy to amend the proposal with this information.

1 Like