Given the recent and upcoming proposals related to treasury management, contributor compensation (TRP), new committees, product expansion under GOOSE-3, and the overall strategic roadmap for 2026, I would like to request a comprehensive breakdown of Lido DAO’s annual expenses.
After all, it is by comparing past results and future plans that we can understand where Lido is succeeding and what deserves more attention.
I see general values at Dune by Steakhouse, but I would like to know the data in more detail, what each item means and what it is used for: https://dune.com/steakhouse/lido-safu
Completely agree with this request. Bringing fiscal discipline to the organization is one of the core responsibilities of delegates. Transparency around operating expenses is crucial and benefits everyone, as it represents the bulk of the DAO’s spending.
By the way, the cost of revenue refers to payments made to node operators, so it should be subtracted from net revenue to calculate the DAO’s actual earnings. I’m not fully aware of the details around liquidity expenses, but “operating expenses” is the primary cost driver.
Hi @Kuzmich and @BCV , thank you for your detailed comments and questions.
We have reviewed the classification of expense categories on the Dune dashboard, corrected the identified issues, and updated the dashboard accordingly (see screenshot below).
We are planning to publish an analysis of actual expenses for the full year 2025 with explanatory notes by the end of Q1’26; however, a breakdown by expense categories is already available on the dashboard here:https://dune.com/queries/2464243/4053073
We will also continue to monitor the accuracy of the financial information presented on the Dune dashboard and ensure that the data remains up to date going forward.
It’s important to note that the reason for the high operational expenses in December shown on the previous screenshot was largely due to internal fund movements rather than actual operating costs.
I fully support Kuzmich’s request. Having a comprehensive and transparent breakdown of Lido DAO’s annual expenses is essential to assess protocol efficiency, resource allocation, and the sustainability of future initiatives like GOOSE-3 or new committees.
Understanding what is behind items like Net Revenue, Liquidity Expenses, Cost of Revenue, and Operating Expenses, as well as analyzing spikes such as December 2025, allows the community to make better-informed decisions and builds trust in treasury management.
Detailed financial transparency not only helps audit past results but is also crucial for planning and prioritizing strategic resources for 2026.
The lag in annual reporting is a persistent friction point. Instead of just requesting a static 2025 breakdown, shouldn’t we prioritize a real-time treasury dashboard that tracks significant outflows?
A static PDF is a snapshot of the past; for a protocol of Lido’s scale, we should move toward a “Continuous Auditing” model. Are there plans to integrate the 2025 expense tracking with tools like Karpatkey or similar treasury management platforms for better visibility?
At the moment, we already maintain a real-time Dune dashboard: the Lido SAFU dashboard (Protocol Economic Reports) which provides an overview of Lido’s protocol economics, historical flows, and monthly inflows and outflows in both ETH and USD:
Key financial metrics are also covered in quarterly Lido Poolside: Tokenholder Update (here is November Recap). The next update, including the 2025 year-end wrap-up, is planned for February 26 - you can register here: https://luma.com/4zmrpv7r
In parallel, we will publish a formal annual report, including the GOOSE-2 retro, targeted for the end of February. This serves a different purpose as a reconciled and reviewed snapshot across operations, finance, and governance.
While real-time reporting is valuable, it also comes with challenges around data completeness, categorization, and accuracy. This is why many treasury management providers rely on periodic static snapshots (e.g., monthly) to ensure consistency and correctness. Improving transparency and tooling remains a priority, and we continue to evaluate the right balance between timeliness, accuracy, and operational overhead.
