Hipo vs Obol: liquid staking or validator infrastructure? (2026)

Hipo and Obol serve different parts of staking. Hipo is a direct liquid-staking option on TON: stake GRAM and receive hGRAM, whose value relative to GRAM reflects accumulated validation rewards. The project says hGRAM can also be used across TON DeFi. It advertises a minimum stake of 1 GRAM and unstaking at any time.

Obol is Ethereum staking infrastructure, not a direct GRAM-style staking app. Its Distributed Validators divide validator operation among several operators using distributed key generation and threshold signing. It also supports client diversity and operator rotation. Users looking at Obol need to consider the staking protocol or operator that uses its infrastructure, as well as the setup involved.

The scale differs too: Hipo’s TVL is about $11.76 million, while roughly $1.23 billion is tracked for Obol. Obol’s homepage reports a different TVL figure, so those figures should not be treated as directly comparable without checking how they are counted.

Hipo advertises a staking fee that is currently 0%, meaning it says stakers receive all staking rewards. The wording matters: the fee is described as current, not guaranteed to remain at zero. Network transaction fees on TON, costs to swap hGRAM or HPO, and any unstaking costs are not published.

Obol’s fees are not published. Because it provides infrastructure used by staking protocols and operators, the amount a user pays may depend on the specific product or operator arrangement. The project also describes OBOL incentives that reward TVL, but publishes no rates here. Incentives should not be assumed to offset fees or guarantee a particular return.

For either option, check the terms in the specific app, staking protocol or operator before committing. Hipo’s rewards can vary, and its past figures are not a promise of future returns. Obol’s costs and net returns depend on the service built on top of its infrastructure.

Hipo describes four audit reports: two for v1 and two for v2, including a Quantstamp report for v2 in April 2025. Its audit count is also listed as two, so the count is inconsistent. Hipo says its contracts are open source. Audits can identify issues but cannot remove smart-contract risk; staking also carries TON network and validator risks. Using hGRAM in other DeFi apps adds the risks of those apps and of the token trading at a discount.

Obol has no audit reports listed here, and it does not include audit reports in its project information. Its distributed keys, operator clusters and client diversity are intended to reduce certain single points of failure, but add software and coordination complexity. Risks include validator software, operator behavior and the staking products built on its infrastructure. OBOL also carries market and governance risk.

Neither project’s described safeguards make staking risk-free. Consider what you are staking, how the system works and what could happen if a contract, operator or token market behaves unexpectedly.

Hipo is the more straightforward choice for someone who already holds GRAM and wants to stake it while receiving a liquid token. Its site advertises a low minimum, a current 0% staking fee and hGRAM use across TON DeFi. That convenience comes with exposure to a single chain, variable rewards and the risks of using hGRAM in other applications. HPO is described as small and may be illiquid.

Obol is a better fit for people who want Ethereum validator infrastructure with multiple operators, client diversity and operator rotation. Its deployment tooling and documentation serve several types of users, but distributed-validator setup is more involved than using a basic liquid-staking token. Obol’s Obol Stack is early, and the project lists only four applications for it.

In short, choose Hipo for direct TON liquid staking; consider Obol for Ethereum validator operations and infrastructure. Do not choose between them by TVL alone: their products and chains are different, and Obol’s published TVL figures differ by source.