Governance
Governance is in Transition
Governance within Obol is currently paused and undergoing a transition phase.
In its initial phase, Obol operated a delegate-based governance system, where OBOL token holders could delegate voting power and participate in proposal discussions, voting cycles, and funding decisions. This system enabled early coordination across our ecosystem, and the full history of proposals (OIPs), votes, and discussions remains publicly available on the Governance Forum. 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.
However, both internal learnings and broader ecosystem developments have made it clear that this model is not the right long-term solution for Obol.
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. More broadly, the retreat from token-vote governance at several major projects is a response to dysfunction, “governance theater,” and the need for more accountable execution models.
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-asset analysis still turns on the economic realities of the arrangement 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.
Why Governance is Paused
Rather than continuing with a system that is no longer fit for purpose, governance has been intentionally paused to allow space for redesign.
Our goal is not to maintain governance for its own sake, but to build a model that:
Reflects the realities of how the Obol operates
Enables effective decision-making and execution
Aligns stakeholders with real participation and responsibility
Is designed with long-term regulatory clarity in mind
What Comes Next
We are actively exploring and designing the next iteration of governance for Obol.
This includes rethinking:
The role of token holders
The structure of decision-making
The balance between execution and oversight
How contributors and stakeholders meaningfully participate
Progress is ongoing. While this work takes time, it is moving forward deliberately.
Stay Involved
If you want to follow along or contribute to the future of Obol governance, we encourage you to join the discussion:
Last updated
Was this helpful?