# \[Lido Labs\] GOOSE-3: Lido’s Next Chapter

**URL:** <https://research.lido.fi/t/lido-labs-goose-3-lido-s-next-chapter/10927>\
**Category:** Proposals\
**Created:** [November 24, 2025, 3:34pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/lido-labs-goose-3-lido-s-next-chapter/10927 "2025-11-24T15:34:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 18

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mol\_Eliza](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/mol_eliza/32/3617_2.png) [@Mol\_Eliza](https://research.lido.fi/u/Mol_Eliza)\
**Post date:** [December 12, 2025, 9:32am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/lido-labs-goose-3-lido-s-next-chapter/10927/18 "2025-12-12T09:32:27Z")

</div>

> [@Lanski](#):
>
> Another way of raising this point would be: 1M ETH staked in stVaults sounds good but: **What percentage of total protocol stake do we _want_ in stVaults vs CSM / SDVT / Core, and how do we prevent the B2B side from eating all the oxygen and regressing back to a more centralized Lido?**

Hey there!  
Really appreciate your feedback and the valid points for a discussion.

I’ll focus on the quoted question and will share my **personal** vision here, as i this is as quite _heavy_ question & risk highlighted and that i’ve also considering contributing on stVaults design.

In the first part “_What percentage of total protocol stake do we want in stVaults vs CSM / SDVT / Core_” my personal preference is, well: _ **as high as possible** _.

And this is definitely a hot take, but with some nuances:  
Firstly, as stated in [Lido v3 Whitepaper RFC](https://research.lido.fi/t/lido-v3-whitepaper-rfc/10124) Lido Core is a backbone of stVaults design, providing _baseline_ institutional grade risk-rewards staking profile on the market with deep liquidity.

Therefore what i mean by “as high as possible” is stVaults **on top** of Lido Core as a flexible customizable staking setups utilizing existing stable, again, _baseline_.

**There are different actors within staking ecosystem, and they have different preferences. And even the best product (which I personally consider Lido Core) couldn’t suit all the needs - and that’s absolutely normal.**

So what i would see as a purpose and as a win for stVaults is creating multiple products, representing different actors preferences on the market on top of Lido Core as a fundamental layer within the system.

And why do i think it’s important?

That’s connected with the second part of the question:

" _how do we prevent the B2B side from eating all the oxygen and regressing back to a more centralized Lido_"

The simple answer is - the same as Lido’ve prevented centralization of the stake when it was created: by providing the product that is best from users perspective and creating the incentives for decentralization within.  
But this time on the different segment(s) of the staking market - which **already** may be _starved_ on oxygen

The current design ([Risk Assessment Framework for stVaults](https://research.lido.fi/t/default-risk-assessment-framework-and-fees-parameters-for-lido-v3-stvaults/)) is already favoring more decentralised setups and disincentivize stake concentration, with more ways to _gover_ the market stated in [Core Pool Sustainability Incentives section in Lido V3 Whitepaper](https://hackmd.io/@lido/v3-whitepaper#Core-Pool-Sustainability-Incentives).

**From this scope i don’t see stVaults and Lido Core competing for stake (or share within protocol): it’s different layers for different actors to utilize on the open market, while DAO provides incentives focused on fostering _healthy_ staking market**

---

_[View the full topic](https://research.lido.fi/t/lido-labs-goose-3-lido-s-next-chapter/10927)._