If we don’t implement NEST or Staking, we are essentially telling the market that our $100M annual revenue is worthless to token holders. A P/E of 3 for the dominant liquid staking protocol is a signal of governance failure, not market efficiency. Let’s fix the value accrual and let the market re-rate LDO to its fair value
2 Likes
They dont want to understand it
Have you had a chance to watch the Tokenholder Call recording where this was addressed directly?
Just in case, the link is here: https://www.youtube.com/live/eU7Em75Ph24?t=1212s
In that call, @vsh explicitly stated that the target is implementation, with proposals around automated liquid buybacks aimed for Q2 2026. This is not being ignored. It is actively being worked on.
As mentioned earlier, the team is currently developing the technical design. Parameters are still under discussion. If you have specific input on the parameters, structure, triggers, caps, allocation logic, that feedback would be valuable at this stage.
One important clarification: when referencing $100M in revenue, note that roughly $50M of that is cost of revenue. It is distributed directly to node operators and does not enter the treasury. Any discussion should reflect that distinction.
2 Likes
Yes, I just want to highlight the important points. While Lido’s market share remains top-tier, the fact that the project’s value is declining despite our efforts is sounding an red alarm. It’s time for a change, now or never.
2 Likes
In your community, decisions are made by only a small portion of the community, namely those with more than 1 million LDO, and according to reports, they only hold 5% of the LDO supply.
Lower the 1 million threshold and implement LDO staking. This will attract new investment and expand voting opportunities. Let the community make decisions, not a select few with money. One party can implement its own budget proposals even if the community resists. This is not decentralization.
1 Like
Yep
When the entire market is bleeding, projects are trying to adapt to the new reality, and LDO is waiting for who knows what.
The market has changed, the world has changed. It won’t be like 2021 anymore; no one will just invest in a project just because it exists.
And LDO only has ONE utility: voting.
While other major protocols (like Aave) are facing internal governance turmoil and TVL outflows, Lido remains a beacon of stability. By approving the NEST/Staking mechanism, we can capture the outflow of liquidity and institutional confidence, proving that LDO is not just a governance token, but a high-quality, profitable asset in a “quality-seeking” environment. When market is recovering and our competitors are facing problems; this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
2 Likes
Hello? You said there were active discussions going on here. Where are they?
@Waneck This thread is meant for discussing community questions and proposals. Anyone is welcome to submit suggestions on parameters, provided they follow the principles that a buyback system should not discriminate against tokenholders by jurisdiction and should not increase the risk of draining the treasury.
As mentioned in the other thread, the Lido protocol is technically complex, and the trade-offs are not as simple as you might think.
As noted above, research is underway on how such a system could be implemented to meet the security standards accepted by the Lido community. As soon as there are updates, they will be posted here.
Disclaimer: Below is my personal view, not speaking as a contributor or on behalf of any entity.
It is honestly unfortunate if you feel the need to exit your LDO position right now. However, as noted several times already, a significant portion of LDO holders — as well as Foundation leadership — appears aligned around this direction: growth in the treasury surplus, rather than exits driven by short-term speculative narratives.
1 Like
To be fair LDO alignment goal was set up in GOOSE2 in 2024 and there’s 0 progress to date.
Will appreciate if you can share the data where “majority of Ldo token holders are aligned about direction” few wales are aligned would be a correct wording based on token distribution you can see on Nansen (top 100 60% of supply).
Market participants showing by there actions what they value as the token is down only for 5 years since 2021 peak and 96% down.
5 years down trend doesn’t look like short term speculative strategy. It clearly shows that lido equity worth 0 (because there’s no equity) and token clearly dosnt represent any connection to the protocol.
6 Likes
Yeah if we say timing will give the answer, zoom out the chart and see, is 5+ years enough to give us answer?
2 Likes
So the answer is LDO lost over 90% of FDV.
So it raises another concerns, why after many years of gainning, the FDV still down and leading to 0?
2 Likes
Maybe u will start doing something for LDO holders,hello?
And maube u will invite all team here and start normal discussion?
Because there hasn’t been any real discussion since the thread was created. And yes, I agree with the commenters above; I’d like to see data where “majority of LDO token holders are aligned about direction.” Because all we see is a five-year downward trend and zero discussion on the issue. Your competitiveness has also decreased because ETFs are already starting to offer their own staking options.
Make EarnLDO if u already making EarnEth and EarnUSD
It feels like the token doesn’t belong to the project at all, and it’s not related to it at all. You’re doing everything for other users, but not for the holders of YOUR OWN TOKEN.
2 Likes
Fair points, let me separate what I agree with from where I think the framing conflates different issues.
What’s correct:
You’re right, “majority of LDO holders aligned” overstates it. The more accurate claim is that the largest holders with the greatest stake are aligned on direction. That’s meaningful, but it’s not the same thing, and I should have been more precise.
GOOSE2 accountability: the target was set at the end of 2024, and delivery has been slow. That’s a fair criticism, and I’m not going to argue with it.
Your core critique:
LDO doesn’t represent any connection to the protocol
LDO holders govern the DAO treasury ($150M) and determine how those resources are allocated. Entities such as the Lido Ecosystem Foundation and others are accountable to the DAO and operate under mandates approved through governance. In practice, this means tokenholders influence strategy, budgets, and the use of treasury assets.
What has been missing is a direct linkage between surplus and the token, but there wasn’t much surplus during the last few years. That is exactly what the buyback mechanism is designed to address. Not to create short-term price action, but to establish the missing link. So, LDO becomes a token that governs a ~$150M treasury, has a mechanism linking it to $30–50M in annual protocol rewards, and serves as a different instrument. Automated execution is in development, with launch targeted before summer. That’s the bet on the table.
3 Likes
Thanks for getting back,
Few points to add from my side that raises concerns (I don’t make allegations just open the discussion)
- holders with large stake are governing the dao treasury, presumably there are the same people from labs that are receiving grands to build the protocol (especially with 25% of mcap budget allocated) it raises concerns on interest alignment and real treasury ownership.
- With this conservation of power on tokens and treasury, others are just left behind without any say or protocol value (large holders control the treasury)
- Obviously community or entity can (or should) buy more tokens to change that dynamic but for now the approach shows signficant and long term token destruction.
- I don’t mean we should distribute all the revenue and destroy the long terms vision of the protocol but holders excl top5 who which doesn’t get money from treasury should be involved in protocol success.
- Considering DUNA registration with giving some legal share of the company to holders would satisfy most request.
LDO currently perceived (not saying it’s how it is) as a tool for top 5 holders to grant themselves 60m annual cash injection.
To add a point to my concerns I’m A top20 Holder
4 Likes
@Leuts @Lanski @polar as few biggest public delegates in lido dao it would be great to hear your thoughts and feedback on this hot and widely discussed topic both on twitter and forum.
1 Like
Hi there, i’ve made my point clear in many other posts in the forum. Focus should be on growth. I am an advocate for dual token systems like ve (not necessarily a 4 year curve), I think NEST is a good start although it’s evident the market doesn’t agree.
3 Likes
Thanks for the response, but it doesn’t address the core issue.
LDO governs a treasury — but that’s not real value for holders. The token still has no meaningful value capture: no yield, no direct link to protocol success, no strong rights.
Buybacks don’t fix this. They’re a weak, indirect mechanism — not a fundamental token model.
If large holders already control decisions, then “holder alignment” isn’t real decentralization.
The main question remains:
why hold LDO when ETH or stETH offer clearer and stronger economics?
Until there’s a clear answer, the market is correctly pricing LDO as a weak token on top of a strong protocol.
2 Likes
This is wrong.
Token holders do have power over the protocol and fee switch.
To add a new staking module or update it with new fees, full governance flow required, hence controlled by LDO holders. That can be validated here: core/contracts/0.8.9/StakingRouter.sol at cca04b42123735714d8c60a73c2f7af949e989db · lidofinance/core · GitHub
Feel free to use otf.aragon.org and under Lido you will explicitly see what the LDO token controls and doesn’t.
For people still complaint about the price, LDO just vote paper, no linked directly or get any benefit from protocol revenue. So even ETH reach 100.000$ the benefit to LDO holder is 0 until now.