EIP-8363 poses a major threat to our protocol, with potential revenue losses of 75% or more. Since we are already operating at a loss, this could be catastrophic. What is the DAO’s official stance and action plan if this proposal moves forward—with or without public consensus? We need clarity on how leadership plans to secure the protocol’s future.
3 Likes
I wrote about this too—it seems the project doesn’t have a clear plan for this scenario. I also haven’t seen a single official statement from the project team, even though nearly a week has passed.
1 Like
While the intent behind EIP-8363 (managing staking saturation and monetary policy) addresses important macro concerns, from a home node operator perspective, the proposed yield compression creates a severe operational asymmetry.
Solo stakers and independent CSM operators face fixed infrastructure costs (hardware, power, bandwidth, and maintenance time). Tapering net consensus rewards toward zero doesn’t stop capital; instead, it risks squeezing out low-margin, decentralized operators first—unintentionally accelerating stake consolidation into scale-driven institutional pools that rely heavily on MEV.
Furthermore, keeping raw penalties intact while burning net yield significantly inflates the payback period required to recover from routine downtime (like local ISP or power outages). Any mitigation framework discussed within Lido or Ethereum governance must account for the fixed-cost realities of home infrastructure, ensuring that protocol-level issuance changes do not inadvertently compromise client and operator diversity.
1 Like
There are plenty of comments from various contributors (including those you’ve tagged) on this subject on twitter and on the ethmagicians forum post, as well as on last week’s ACDC call. A formal statement from contributors forthcoming but also obviously something that requires quite a bit of work (no one wants a plan that’s predominantly AI slop). Given the suddenness, wide scope, and honestly bizarre consensus-building (or lack thereof) that the proponents of this proposal have engaged in, it’s something that will take a bit more time than just a few days.
What is the DAO’s official stance and action plan if this proposal moves forward
Contributors are not the DAO, the DAO can only have an official stance via a DAO vote where tokenholders decide. You’re free and encouraged to constructively discuss what you think the DAO’s response should be as participants within the DAO governance process.
6 Likes
I don’t consider this an answer to the question.
This topic(8361) has been discussed for years, but it has recently gained traction because solo stakers risk being sidelined.
The issue isn’t what *we*—as forum participants—should be discussing, but rather: what is the team’s action plan if Proposal 8361 is adopted?
Has the team simply ignored this issue for years while hyping up the community with loud Twitter posts, or have they been developing a contingency plan?
At some point, this proposal will inevitably be adopted—whether in a year, five years, or ten. What will happen to Lido?
I’ve been an LDO holder since 2021; while I do believe in the project, I am not at all happy with the team’s actions. Just consider the fact that the team ignored every proposal on the Lido research forum that didn’t come from developers close to them.
So, please provide a clearer and more detailed answer.
1 Like
I agree with your sentiment and can assure you the team has been thinking about response strategies for a long time. We will provide an update in the next tokenholder call in about two weeks.
10 Likes
Adding my perspective as someone who is following closely the Ethereum future roadmap and contributing to Lido from a technical / strategic perspective.
- Over the last 6 months a team of contributors has been deep diving into all aspects of Ethereum roadmap (see e.g., Lean Ethereum, strawmap, post-quantum transition, privacy), getting a solid view of what Ethereum is expected to be in ~3 years from now the evolution of Lido in parallel. This is ongoing strategic work with a clear goal: Lido is a first-class, protocol-aligned participant of future Ethereum. Issuance is one important dimension of that work, and one we’ve been engaged on for a long time — including at the Issuance Forum at EthCC 2026, where we presented our perspective alongside all stakeholders, including some of the EIP-8363 authors.
- What was genuinely surprising was the process around this specific EIP: a concrete issuance change proposed for Hegota days before the PFI deadline, without taking into account any of the feedback provided by the community - and while even the strawmap targeted a potential issuance upgrade for a later fork. That’s a legitimate process concern and one we’ve raised publicly (ACD call, Magicians forum), not because we oppose discussing issuance, but because a change this consequential deserves more than 48 hours of community review.
- I understand the anxiety when such a proposal comes out. A severe issuance cut in its current formulation would hurt not just Lido’s economics, but its ability to support the kind of work that benefits Ethereum more broadly: operator diversity, client team support, infrastructure contributions, public goods funding. That cost is real and we think it’s underappreciated in the current proposal.
- But I want to be direct: We are not in panic mode, and you shouldn’t be either. Lido has navigated difficult protocol environments before and will again. We have a clear-eyed view of what this means for the protocol, we understand the challenges, and we are actively mapping the path forward. More will come out soon, starting at the upcoming tokenholder call.
For now, the most important thing is making the right arguments in the right places. We’ve been doing that — in the Ethereum Magicians thread, ACD call, in public statements, and in direct engagement with researchers and core developers. That work continues.
PS: One more thing worth saying: issuance is an important aspect but not the only factor. ETH/USD price turns out to be another super-important and highly unpredictable one, and it’s also part of our assessments. Last year, with ETH at ~4K USD, Lido budgeted for 2026 assuming an average price of 2700. The actual average has been quite lower — and yet Lido has managed well, adjusting strategy flexibly and effectively. Dealing with volatile environments is part of our DNA, and we have the resilience to navigate through it.
9 Likes
Can @dgusakov stop shitposting and crying in X every day about EIP?
Maybe he will start working and thinking about what to do if it will pass?
Not screaming that he will stop home staking ,etc.
WTF?
Do you really think investors and stakers will look at this and be happy?
I’ve said it before—you are the face of the project; what the hell are you doing?
As long as he didn’t open his mouth, ldo stayed at 0.30 all day. That is the result of his brilliant oratory skills.
FYI, a team of Lido contributors posted our view on EIP-8363 and issuance update more broadly on EthMagicians: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-8363-tapered-issuance-burn/29263/231
3 Likes
Gm! Glad that you follow my personal account on X. I would appreciate that you take the same constructive approach and post your ideas on Lido Staking post EIP-8363.
1 Like
I would also appreciate it if you could provide the users and the community with a concrete action plan if EIP-8363 be adopted.
And please answer the following questions:
1.What will happen to the project?
2.What will happen to the LDO token?
3.Why does the project prioritize stakers while LDO holders incur losses?
4.Don’t you think that $10 million in annual buybacks against a FDV of $300 million is a paltry amount?
Or “If EIP-8363 is added to any hardfork, I’ll stop home staking myself and will stop any activity to promote Home Staking” Is this exactly what users need to hear?
So you don’t have any proposal, right?
1 Like
1. I previously posted my proposals regarding this EIP on Ethereum Magicians, but they were subsequently removed by moderators.
2. Now, as a long-term LDO holder, I am addressing you—as one of the project’s developers (a team member)—with specific questions. If you do not have answers to them, admit your incompetence and state so, rather than waiting for someone else to draft proposals on your behalf.
As a solo operator running a home node on DAppNode (Lighthouse + Nethermind), this EIP creates a real issue. Home setups have fixed hardware and running costs. Lower yields will make it much harder for small operators to stay active, which hurts base layer decentralization, in my opinion.
3 Likes
As a solo staker using Dappnode myself, I agree with this sentiment.
As a Lido DAO delegate, I’ve had discussions with the Lido team and I can assure the members they are thinking hard about it.
As a cyberpunk and CROPS advocate, I have huge concerns about the EIP and I am personally involved in talks with relevant members of the ecosystem.
Personally, I would rather the EIP not pass at all, and I am doing whatever is in my power to fight for that outcome. If it passes, it won’t be immediate and the application will take some time.
I understand the anxiety it generates - trust me, this decision impacts me personally to a very high degree - but I don’t think this is an excuse to lack respect to anyone, especially the ones who presumably also want the same outcome and are fighting for the same outcome.
Hopefully the knowledge that there are people actively working in several fronts (1. Stopping or modifying the EIP and 2. Laying down a plan for if the EIP passes) can bring some relief to such anxiety.
Looking forward to the next tokenholder call.
6 Likes
Really appreciate this level-headed update.
As a fellow home staker running on DAppNode, I completely share the hope that EIP-8363 doesn’t pass at all. That said, knowing that delegates and contributors are actively pushing on both fronts—pushing back against the proposal while quietly preparing contingency plans—brings a lot of peace of mind to small operators.
Tensions naturally run high when changes threaten home staking economics, but keeping discussions respectful and constructive is how we actually move the needle together. Thanks for representing solo stakers in these discussions, looking forward to the tokenholder call.
1 Like
It goes without saying - Lido can only succeed alongside a successful Ethereum.
So I’d be curious to know whether Lido contributors (and the broader Lido community) believe there’s merit to concerns that have been voiced over the prospect that continued growth of staked ETH will undermine the long term success of Ethereum.
-
Do Lido contributors believe it is credible that staked Ethereum will trend above 50% and toward 100% in the foreseeable future if no change to issuance is made?
-
Do Lido contributors believe such an outcome would materially undermine the credible neutrality of Ethereum and/or monetary properties fundamental to ETH’s desirability as an asset/store of value?
Personally, I find it difficult to reason through these questions and reach confident conclusions. But it’s totally apparent to me that there are brilliant people on all sides of this debate who care deeply about Ethereum and have thought hard about these questions.
I read the post by @GregK on behalf of Lido contributors on EthMagicians. I felt that it appropriately and constructively addressed unresolved concerns/issues with the specific approach to capping issuance laid out in the EIP-8363 proposal, and the decision making process around the proposal.
But I did not provide me with a understanding of where Lido contributors stand in respect to the underlying concerns that gave rise to this EIP proposal. I feel there’s an opportunity here for the Lido core contributors (to the extent a rough consensus can be reached) to exercise leadership in developing and articulating a clear view on these underlying questions.
And if there’s a feeling that concerns around issuance are not, on the whole, misplaced, then I’d encourage Lido contributors to propose (or comment upon) alternative solutions, as failing to do so leaves Lido susceptible to being framed (in my view wrongly) as a misaligned, obstructionist incumbent blocking necessary progress in favor of its own self interest.
3 Likes
As far as I know, the proposal didn’t gain traction — and I think that’s a positive outcome.
That said, in my opinion:
If a proposal like this were ever approved, one possible solution could be using LDO tokens to help offset the reduced earnings for node operators, and i’ m not happy saying that.
However I’m not entirely sure how sustainable that approach would be over the long term. and also privatizing node rewards would definitely have consequences.
1 Like
Alternatively, Lido could raise its fees.
A perspective: a low issuance environment creates stronger incentive for market participants to seek yield by alternative means, which arguably plays to Lido’s core strength as the most liquid (and arguably lowest risk) staked ETH collateral.
Basically - a low issuance environment arguably strengthens the use case for LSTs relative to solo staking and custodial staking, and Lido’s competitive position vis-a-vis alternative LSTs.
In a low issuance environment, all LSTs would have strong pressure to raise fees, and Lido is as well positioned to pass fee increases as any other market participant.
2 Likes