I’ve deleted the related post.
The reason I wrote those things and changed my previous attitude is because I saw the team’s positive response to community feedback. They are encouraging the community to participate in the discussion and work together to develop a detailed proposal for the changes. I think this is a good start.
It would be even better if the team could share this response on the official Twitter account and encourage more community members to participate in the discussion.
Could you please point out where you saw a positive reaction from the team to community feedback?
I haven’t noticed any proposals or dialogue from the team or delegates in this thread.
The buyback proposals were created by the team, yet the team ignored the comments raised regarding them.
Did I miss something? I would be happy to review the material if you could provide it.
My main question to the team is: why is the entire treasury held in ETH? Why isn’t a significant portion of ETH converted to stablecoins when the price is above $4,000 per ETH? After all, the protocol earns all its revenue in ETH and covers operational expenses by selling this same ETH. Selling ETH at $4,000+ is one thing, but selling it at $1,500–$2,000 is completely different. I understand that you are betting on ETH as the main ecosystem of the entire industry and its price growth. But the market has shown time and time again how the price can stay unreasonably low for a long time. Selling ETH at $4,000+ instead of $1,500–$2,000 allows you to cover 2x more time for operations with the exact same amount of ETH. And if the price of ETH drops too low, you could accumulate ETH in the treasury to further increase the fiat reserve when the price grows, because the market is cyclical. You are essentially throwing away ETH earned by the protocol. Has the ETH price chart over the last 5 years really not taught you anything?
While the team ignores the problems, the market has already sorted everything out.
Oh well, we’ll just wait for ЕTH to hit $2,730 and then start buybacks.
Many times, it’s been too much of a betrayal of holders’ trust. How many years has Ldo been falling? It’s almost always been in a choppy decline. Saying the whole market is falling, that the bear market environment makes it reasonable—finally the market rebounds a bit, the foundation has not given any incentive policy. Ldo has lost to almost every token in the Eth ecosystem. Although these words are negative, this is the fact. Ldo has never, on any day, been worthy of its holders.
What can I say?
The result was entirely expected. I didn’t actually count on the idea being accepted; I had other goals in mind.
Let me explain a bit.
My goal was to show the crypto community that Lido ≠ LDO
I wanted to highlight that delegates vote ONLY for ideas originating from the team. I analyzed all the votes over the past couple of years and looked at how delegates voted on proposals from other projects or users. In 100% of cases, delegates voted FOR the team’s ideas,even if they disagree on something or didn’t understand certain points)
while in 99% of cases, they voted against the others. Impressive statistics, aren’t they?
Another goal was to show that the team and delegates completely IGNORES community requests.
And that the team uses its delegates to advance its own interests.
None of them showed up for the discussion or proposed any changes, points for debate, and so on. They only decided to voice their position when it came time to vote.
This is not a DAO.
Also, thanks to @Leuts for clearly explaining to me that delegates act “not in the interest of the entire community,” but rather in the interest of those who delegated to them. That explains a lot about the project’s goals.
A DAO implies sensible discussion of ideas and market conditions, as well as open debate. I saw no such discussion.
The concentration of control over a protocol with $26 billion in TVL in the hands of just 10–15 delegates seems absurd—unless, of course, they are voting exactly “the way the project team wants.”
As @Jenya_K s used to say: “The market is falling—that’s why LDO is falling too.” But what do we see now?
$ETH at $2,750
$LDO at $0.43—the same level as when $ETH was at $2,000.
All while other large, mid-cap, and small-cap tokens have seen 2–3x gains.
When everything grow - LDO grow less then others.When everything dump - LDO dump more then others.
66k holders. Its mean nobody need it.Nobody use it to vote, except delegates of course.It useless.
The point was to show the community that, after five years, the project has failed—and will continue to fail—to support ordinary users and token holders. It also won’t be able to compete with other projects that are innovating, launching *real* buyback programs (using 100% of revenue or fees), and so on. We also won’t see full financial reports on expenses.
Batching, delays, low rates to reduce buybacks — these are all ways to minimize returns to holders. But projects they favor get funded fast. Governance is more form than substance, ultimately serving the vested interests of a few
I don’t think we even need to start buybacks. It’s already becoming clear what the market is choosing.
From start,NEST was active only 2 days)
Honestly, at this stage, I fully agree with the comments under every post on X about team and LDO
Personally, I am selling my LDO, withdrawing my ETH from staking, and moving to another project. I hope time will set things straight, and that investors, future holders, and retail buyers of $LDO will see this message and avoid making mistakes.
Thanks, everyone.
a delegate is supposed to represent only those who delegated authority to them—acting directly as a mouthpiece for the specific group, faction, or constituency that elected or appointed them. They are bound by the instructions of their specific “principals” rather than the interests of the entire population.
I appreciate you getting involved in LDO governance of course. Best of luck wherever and whichever token you purchase next!
