Treasury P&L are excluded to focus on operating dynamics.
LDO market cap and ETH in treasury are calculated using 100-day EMA prices to reduce short-term volatility and better reflect structural valuation trends.
Circulating supply includes all LDO tokens excluding the DAO Treasury.
This thread will be updated at each month-end with refreshed charts.
LTM protocol revenue has gradually declined over the observed period, while DAO operating expenses remained relatively stable. As a result, the spread between revenue and expenses has narrowed compared to late 2025.
Net margin fluctuated across the period, reflecting both revenue changes and variations in DAO spending. Margins remain positive but below the levels observed earlier in the period.
LDO market capitalization declined significantly over the period, while treasury value decreased more moderately. As a result, treasury backing represents a larger share of market capitalization than in late 2025.
Revenue yield increased as LDO market capitalization declined while protocol revenue remained relatively stable. This reflects valuation compression relative to protocol revenue generation.
Notes on Data Sources and Reporting Infrastructure
While preparing these charts I encountered several practical challenges related to data availability and consistency.
The primary financial dashboard used for the revenue and expense data (Steakhouse) has changed structure several times over recent months. As a result, historical tracking sometimes requires manual adjustments when queries or labels change.
Treasury reporting is also less straightforward. There is currently no single official dashboard that presents the full DAO treasury composition in a clean and stable format. For the treasury values used in these charts I relied primarily on the community dashboard created by Giraffa.
However, that dashboard does not currently include the sUSDS component of the treasury. That portion had to be added manually when calculating the treasury value used in the charts.
These challenges are manageable for individual analysis, but they highlight a broader point: consistent and standardized financial reporting would make it significantly easier for tokenholders and governance participants to monitor the protocol’s financial position.
Ideally, Lido DAO could maintain a stable and comprehensive financial reporting framework where revenue, expenses, and treasury composition are clearly documented and consistently presented.
Such infrastructure would improve transparency and allow the community to analyze protocol fundamentals with greater confidence.
I agree. In the age of AI taking over, transparency might not be a already digested dashboard but an endpoint with all data so anyone can point an agent to it and get whatever they want explained in detail.
Thank you for sharing this analysis of Lido’s financial data. It is great to see this level of work and attention to detail from the community.
As a part of the Finance Team I agree with your observation that Dune-based reporting, in its current form, has limitations when it comes to producing a comprehensive financial view. While revenue can be tracked relatively well and in a timely manner, the dashboard view is still constrained by how the underlying data is presented.
In particular, the current setup is closer to a cash- or transfer-based view than to a fully accrual-adjusted financial view. This creates a few limitations:
expenses are not presented on an accrual basis;
some line items require reclassification to better reflect their economic substance;
not every token movement out of treasury corresponds to a transfer of economic ownership from the DAO to an external party, which can make raw wallet-level flows insufficient on their own for financial reporting purposes.
This is one of the main reasons we prepared and published an accrual-adjusted financial report, incorporating material adjustments. You can find it here: [link].
In particular:
we recalculated TRP-related expenses on an accrual basis, whereas in the dashboard view they are otherwise captured within operating expenses;
Deposit Referrals, which appear within Liquidity Expenses in your analysis, were reclassified into Cost of Revenue;
more generally, where raw dashboard outputs do not fully reflect the underlying financial reality, we apply manual review and adjustment in order to improve it.
Regarding treasury position, the relevant breakdown is also included in the same report (see the Treasury Position table). The sUSDS component is included under “Stablecoins in DAO Treasury (mUSD)”, although it is not currently shown as a separate line item.
More broadly, fully agree that reliable, consistent, and standardized financial reporting is important for community. This is also iterative work on our side: we are continuing to improve both the methodology and the presentation. Our goal is to move toward a more standardized reporting approach that is easier to interpret, easier to compare across periods, and more familiar to readers used to traditional financial reporting conventions. And that sounds like an interesting idea - providing users with a structured data layer that can be accessed and analyzed by agents, thank you, we’ll give this some thought.
My goal with this tracker was to build a clearer view of Lido’s operating dynamics using live and accessible data. However, your explanation and the differences versus the published final report make it clear that the current dashboard data is not sufficient for accurate ongoing financial reporting, especially on expenses, classifications, and accrual-based adjustments.
Because of that, I do not think it would be responsible to continue publishing monthly financial updates based on the current dashboard outputs alone. I would rather pause the series than keep posting figures that may create a misleading picture.
I still believe more timely, standardized, and transparent financial reporting would be very valuable for tokenholders. Ideally, this would include a clearer live data layer or reporting framework that allows the community to follow protocol financials on a more consistent basis throughout the year, rather than relying mainly on year-end reporting.
Thank you again for the clarification and for engaging seriously with the analysis.
LTM Revenue vs LTM Expenses
LTM Net Margin (%)
LDO Market Cap vs Treasury
LTM Gross Revenue Yield (%)
