Hey Lido team,
Built a governance health scoring system that analyzes on-chain voting
patterns across major DAOs.
Lido scores 7.2/10 - solid, but I noticed something interesting: your
Delegate Engagement Index is pulling the score down slightly. Top delegates
are voting, but mid-tier delegate participation drops off sharply after
the top 10.
Not a critique - just data. Thought your governance team might find it
useful for planning delegate incentive programs.
Full breakdown here: https://chainsights.one/rankings#lido
Happy to walk through the methodology if you're curious.
- Mario
Founder, ChainSights
Hi! Thanks for the data — we’ll definitely review it and see what we can do.
Quick question: what did your research show? Are there any DAOs that significantly outperform Lido on this metric? Because intuitively, the lower a delegate’s VP, the less consistently they participate - just a natural way of things.
1 Like
Hey Jenya - glad this is useful! Took a bit to pull comparable data.
Short answer: delegate participation is brutal across the board - we’re seeing 0.08%-0.84% at ENS, 0.01%-0.10% at Arbitrum, vs Lido’s ~0.14%. So you’re right that low VP = low participation is universal.
But here’s where Lido differs from ENS specifically:
-
Power concentration: Lido’s top 5 wallets control 51.1% of voting power vs ENS at 31%. That’s a meaningful gap.
-
Nakamoto coefficient: Lido = 5, ENS = 11. Fewer entities needed to control Lido governance.
-
Voter breadth: Lido has 151 unique voters vs ENS at 302 (2x more).
The participation rate problem is the same everywhere. The concentration problem is where Lido stands out.
One observation: ENS shows mixed voting outcomes (some proposals actually get rejected), while Lido’s recent proposals are unanimous. Could be great consensus, could be insufficient opposition representation - hard to say from outside.
Happy to share the full reports if useful - ran fresh analysis on all three DAOs today. No pitch, just data.
Mario
2 Likes