Reclaim Unclaimed Monthly Rewards Proposal

Treasury
1

1. Proposal

This proposal establishes a 6-month expiration period for unclaimed monthly loyalty program reimbursement rewards. After this window, any distributed but unclaimed rewards will be automatically reclaimed and returned to the Loyalty Rewards wallet for redistribution in future reward cycles.

The goal is to ensure that allocated rewards remain active within the ecosystem rather than lying dormant or unclaimed indefinitely. By implementing this reclaim mechanism, we can optimize the distribution of rewards to active participants and maintain a more efficient reward system.

This policy will apply to all future monthly epoch rewards starting with the next distribution cycle after this proposal’s approval.

2. Rationale

Monthly rewards are designed to incentivize active participation in the Odos ecosystem. When rewards remain unclaimed for extended periods, it suggests the recipients have ceased engaging with the protocol.

A 6-month claim window provides ample time for community members to claim their rewards while ensuring that allocated tokens continue to serve their intended purpose of incentivizing participation.

3. Implementation Plan

  • A 6-month countdown will begin for each reward distribution from the date rewards are made available for claiming.
  • Clear notifications will be implemented in the claiming interface showing the expiration date for each reward.
  • On the day following the 6-month period, the smart contract will automatically transfer unclaimed rewards back to the Loyalty Rewards wallet.

4. Benefits

  • Reward Optimization: Ensures rewards are distributed to active participants in the ecosystem.
  • Economic Efficiency: Prevents indefinite fragmentation of tokens across inactive wallets.
  • Increased Engagement: Encourages more regular interaction with the protocol.

5. Next Steps

  • Upon approval, the technical team will begin work on the 60-day expiration mechanism in the reward distribution contracts.
  • DAO team will develop and execute a comprehensive notification strategy.
  • DAO team will monitor the impact and effectiveness of this policy.
2

As an anxious person, I can say that any countdown annoys me, and it wouldn’t encourage me to interact with the protocol more regularly.

How many unclaimed tokens are we talking about? I believe there are between 2 and 3 million claimed tokens. I’m interested to know if the number of unclaimed tokens is significant enough to warrant this discussion at all.

Let me also remind you that the technical team already has a lot to do, even without this proposal. I would prefer they focus on more important tasks if the number of tokens in question is small.

What’s wrong with tokens lying dormant or unclaimed indefinitely? These tokens are naturally out of circulation, which supports the price. We won’t run out of tokens to reward users with—ODOS has 18 decimals, and nobody would mind receiving a hundred times fewer tokens if the price is a hundred times higher. Also, this so-called fragmentation is sometimes referred to as decentralization, which some people consider a positive thing.

Why do we need to encourage users to claim their tokens if they will most likely sell them?

I feel that the price of claimed tokens is more important than their quantity, though I’d be glad to hear other opinions.

Also, we don’t need to ensure that rewards are distributed to active users, because inactive users, by definition, don’t claim rewards. I didn’t understand this point at all.

I suggest we first find out how many tokens remain unclaimed before involving the technical team.

2 Likes
3

While I support the eventual crawl back of the initial airdrop I don’t support this proposal as written. @pomme raises my main point of contention that there’s no measure of how many tokens/users this will impact.

In general I feel these rewards were earned as the initial program was designed and should be honored no matter when they’re claimed. If this gets support I will likely be posting a proposal for an automatic claiming mechanism with some % take rate for the DAO. Even better if this can be appended to this proposal.

I don’t think adding overhead to less active but “high quality” users is the right path to increasing treasury holdings

2 Likes
4

Let me share my experience. I consider myself an active Odos user, but on my second wallet, I made only a few swaps, which earned me a reward worth just a penny. I haven’t claimed it because the gas cost would exceed the reward itself.

If Odos reclaims my penny, my perception is that Odos is either taking pennies from users—which feels like begging—or specifically taking from those who have only a penny, which seems just evil. Either way, my attitude toward Odos could be negatively affected.

I’m simply saying that this proposal introduces unnecessary annoyance to the user experience. I suggest we consider whether the potential frustration of users is worth the pennies we might reclaim.

1 Like
5

Great idea with the automatic claiming mechanism, @Pull! I think it’s the most convenient way for users to receive rewards, and I’m sure this option has been considered by the technical team at some point. My only concern is that it might be quite complicated to develop. The technical team keeps promising a huge update for everything, but they keep delaying it, so I think they’re pretty busy right now. It would look bad if your idea is agreed upon but the team isn’t able to deliver it. (I’d like to see the technical team’s opinion on the technical aspects of these proposals.)

However, in the future, I believe it might be the ultimate and permanent solution to the claiming problem.

1 Like
6

Hey mate, can you please elaborate on the automatic claiming mechanisms? Would love to hear more about what you have in mind.

1 Like
7

The contract likely requires an upgrade to support a claimOnBehalfOf function. users could automate reward claims with one of the out of the box solutions by:

  1. Funding the automation contract (typical with services like gelato or CL Automation).
  2. Specifying the write function, for instance - claimReward(0x384b1f7e) and an associaated read function to determine claim eligibility and value (https://basescan.org/address/0x4c8f8055d88705f52c9994969dde61ab574895a3#writeContract#F2))
  3. Defining a trigger condition or interval (1m/3m, or dynamically based on claim value)

Most of this flow can be abstracted behind a single transaction, maybe an erc 7702 style transaction. With automation services handling execution. Gelato offers a pretty simple integration path, chainlink keepers probably provide more flexibility at the cost of complexity

concerns about engineering bandwidth are valid, but this integration is relatively low lift. Other bounty approaches exist, I’d assume it’s feasible within a day or two given a focused bounty. The real expense would come from the code audit if you guys use a third party to review imo

cc @pomme

EDIT: This doesnt cover how the take rate would be implemented. There’s a lot of way to add this but would probably be easiest to include it in the transaction flow the user agrees to sign up for so contract level code isnt really necessary. the user will just pay slightly more gas on the automated claim.

2 Likes
8

So if I understand this correctly, you’re basically saying that the rewards claiming process should be automated, and users should be accruing the rewards consistently no matter what directly to their wallets? This flow is what I’m trying to understand better. And what would be the % take rate for the DAO, as in the DAO gets a % of the rewards that is being distributed to the users? Wouldn’t that be counter intuitive as the DAO is the one that is emitting these rewards in the first place?

1 Like
9

I misunderstood the intent behind reclaiming rewards from inactive users. Makes sense to not include any take rate then

Initially I saw it as an opt in feature with a convenience fee. But the key idea here is automating claims. The % cut was just an example of alternative mechanisms to recycle tokens into the treasury, though I now see this conflicts with the purpose of the loyalty program

Here’s some food for thought:
To better understand post claim behavior, I ran a quick script I had to analyze the first $ODOS transfer from each wallet after claiming. I focused on claims made after 2025-04-01 for recency. It’s not perfect and doesn’t account for pre claim balances (an address can send a value greater than their claim if they already had odos in the wallet), but it gives a directional view of a more recent cohort of claimers:

  • 4.87M $ODOS claimed
  • 10M used for liquidity provision
  • 16.2M used in swaps
  • 13M transferred to EOAs (this includes CEX deposit addresses)

This script was quickly repurposed and not well vetted so take it with a grain of salt but highlights the concerns around increasing circulating supply without increasing liquidity / creating native demand for the token. Perhaps the “take rate” can be pointed at liquidity incentives or something similar. It’d be smart to focus on liquidity growth in parallel with these initiatives

image
image1402Ă—437 18.9 KB

image
image817Ă—417 29.6 KB

image
image827Ă—415 37 KB

1 Like
10

This is very cool, so the 4.87mm ODOS claimed - that is separate from the liquidity provision portion, the swaps portions, and the transferred portions just to understand better? Did you look at specifically what users were doing with the claimed tokens? If not I’ll run the analysis for better clarity, but basing off what users were doing with the retroactive rewards, most of it was essentially being dumped (adding dumped + partial dumped + assuming large part of transferred is going to exchanges to be dumped).

I agree with the risks of increasing circulating supply - this is why our recent proposals have been focusing on mitigating circulating supply. Bringing back the loyalty rewards, the retroactive rewards, etc all go towards reducing the possibility of an increase in circulating supply.

1 Like
11

I’ll geek out a bit, I love this stuff.

The code looks for a 0x6ec685171a9028d19dc155a48e7824e3c68b03bc8995410e006abe3cbbeb3e2d claim signature from the 0x4C8f8055D88705f52c9994969DDe61AB574895a3 distributor contract (it does not look to the nonce of the claim).

It marks down the user address & claim event timestamp. Then queries the subsequent transfer from the user after the initial claim timestamp and looks for certain types of functions called in the transaction to label what happened. It doesn’t say anything about how many people are still holding or even how much of the rewards were sold. Though it can be changed to get a better idea of this. I just threw 30mins at this to see what i could come up with.

All it says is this was their next transaction with the $ODOS token after they claimed the reward. They could have been buying from the wallet or transferring from another wallet and selling and it’d get picked up in these events as long as it was their next transaction “from” the address that claimed. Also know it only looks at +1 transaction from that address’s claim. It ignores any transactions after that point unless they claim again.

EDIT:
Awesome dash btw :nerd_face:

1 Like
12

Lol wish I could take credit for it, but it was done by someone in the community. But i that case I see that your breakdown is similar to our intuition, which is that when someone gets the rewards, most of the time what they do is dump the token.

This is what we’re concerned with as well, so we’re trying to prevent that as much as possible by reclaiming rewards, retroactive airdrops, etc. It’s not that the treasury needs the money - frankly speaking, it’s nice to have but we don’t really need it. It’s more about protecting the token and the community members by mitigating as much sell pressure as we can whilst balancing that with rewarding active users.

1 Like
13

Flipside shows that 851.3M in retroactive rewards have been claimed. The current balance of the reward contract is 245.4M, and the total retroactive rewards are 1,100M. From these numbers, we can deduce that 3.3M tokens went to monthly rewards. Is my math correct?

I’m looking at the CEX holdings chart, and it seems that between April and May, Bybit’s market makers sold about 30M $ODOS tokens to regular users (who then withdrew the tokens) and subsequently requested 64M more from the Treasury. Am I mistaken?

@bozhangles, you keep suggesting that moving tokens to the Treasury doesn’t increase the circulating supply, but from my perspective, the Treasury—assisted by CEX market makers—is the largest seller of tokens.

What kind of relationship does the Treasury have with Bybit? This is concerning, since the Treasury does not publish any reports on where and why it moves its tokens. As far as I know, the Treasury could be colluding with market makers to sell tokens, or alternatively, market makers could be scamming the Treasury for free tokens. You see, in the absence of transparency, other investors might have these concerns as well.

The fact that your team, @bozhangles, is pushing all these proposals to increase the Treasury’s holdings before establishing solid trust between the Treasury and DAO members is very upsetting to me.

14

Hey mate, it’s pretty close, but we’re pulling the exact numbers now. It’s structured in a separate database so pulling is taking a little time. But intuitively you’re on the right track.

So in general, loan based market makers don’t actively initiate tokens sales. Their job is to fill the spread between supply and demand. So to the extent that users want to buy tokens at a lower price, they’ll sell those tokens to users. And as users want to sell the tokens, the market maker’s job is to buy it from them. As you saw from the retroactive reward stats, 30% of the claims were transferred, most likely to an exchange. This represents 255M tokens that claimants likely migrated to exchanges and are periodically selling.

Obviously, we’re seeing price continue to trend down. At a high level, this is because there are more sellers than buyers - especially given the current macro dynamic where all altcoin prices are down. Currently, and you can see from our tokenomics, the DAO only owns about 40% of circulating supply. This is a very, very low number. It means that nothing we do in terms of programmatic buybacks, etc will have much of an impact. So to ensure token health and the viability of any initiatives we launch in the future, the most important thing to do is reduce the float that can be sold by existing token holders. This starts with making sure that any outstanding airdrop tokens that users haven’t claimed are migrated back to the treasury, which again is common practice and is done to ensure that someone a year down the line who hasn’t contributed doesn’t reap the benefits of what the community has built in the meantime.

The relationship between the treasury and Bybit is simply that Bybit is an exchange that the token is listed on. It’s the same relationship we have with Kraken, MEXC, Bitmart, etc.

The reason why we’re submitting proposals now is because for the first time since the inception of Odos, there is now a DAO team in place help assist with governance, token, and more. Previous there wasn’t a team to run this, hence no proposals. And so we’re starting with the lowest hanging fruit, as well as best practices in the industry as done by countless DAOs before us (e.g., migrating unclaimed retroactive rewards back to treasury, migrated back unclaimed loyalty rewards, etc).

Hopefully this helps address some of your concerns mate.

15

We see this all the time in reward programs outside of crypto. It seems sensible that unclaimed tokens be recycled into more productive activities or, at the very least, placed into the hands of individuals and entities with a longer-term vested interest or alignment with the protocol.

2 Likes
16

Thank you mate, agreed

1 Like