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.
I don’t consider this an answer to the question.
This topic(8363) 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 8363 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.