Revision of the project's tokenomics

Proposals
1

Good evening everyone.

As a long-term holder, I would like to raise the issue of tokenomics and the continued existence of the project.

In the current market situation, with unstable macro and economic data, it’s time to reconsider the need for the LDO token.

It has absolutely no economic value, it can’t be staked, there are no buybacks, no burns, and its market capitalization ranking has dropped from 80th to 95th place in a week. Investors and holders are only losing money when buying LDO. Even low-cap tokens are currently showing better growth dynamics.

Therefore, I suggest the project team consider the following options and put them to a vote:

1. Destroy all LDO if it serves no purpose.

2. Establish proper LDO staking on par with ETH.

3. Reconsider the future NEST vote, as the “Ether above $3,000 and only a $10 million buyback” conditions will not bring holders anything. Ether can remain below $3,000 for years, as experience shows.

At the same time, staking will remove some LDO from circulation and return it to the ecosystem, which will attract new staking customers.

2 Likes
2

Any comments from team?

@dgusakov @steakhouse @Jenya_K @nikita.p

3

If you wish to have my personal opinion, that’s it: the proposed solutions oversimplify the trade-offs.

A burn of treasury-owned tokens does not create value.

  • Burn is reversible, and DAO can mint tokens again by governance decision.
  • Treasury tokens are not treated by the smart market actors as circulating supply.
  • The only mechanical impact would be a minor quorum reduction (since quorum is based on total supply).

LDO staking is not a neutral design choice.

  • Token staking often creates jurisdictional asymmetries. Different regulatory regimes treat it differently. That can effectively privilege some holders over others based purely on their location.
  • Staking removes liquidity, but that alone does not create protocol fees.

My personal view: the push for LDO staking often looks like a push for short-term speculation, not long-term protocol strength. It does not automatically strengthen the protocol economics, and that’s what’s really needed here.

In traditional finance, buybacks are typically used when a company has surplus and lacks higher-return reinvestment opportunities. They are capital allocation decisions, not growth engines.

Only when: 1) a sustainable treasury surplus exists, and
2) there are no higher-ROI opportunities to deploy capital
it’s time for massive buybacks.

The current proposal is intentionally less conservative than trad approach.
It is a compromise:
For those who want buybacks, it embeds the future linkage of protocol success to LDO.
For those who prefer capital discipline, it preserves surplus-first/sustainability logic.

Lido’s first priority is to generate a sustainable surplus. Second priority as previously discussed and reflected in DAO decisions such as GOOSE-3, is to reinvest treasury surplus into growth and resilience before distributing it.

The core question is not how to pump LDO, but:

  • How to increase sustainable treasury surplus?
  • How to align governance with long-term protocol growth?
  • How to design allocation rules that remain rational across cycles?

Design should follow those answers. That is the framing I would suggest keeping in this discussion.

3 Likes
5

I think the signal is clear, community (who didn’t abandon the project yet) is desperate for change. Lido has no equity and token here is a business performance measurement which is going in one direction. Down only. It looks much worst in this 3 years than majority of memes and it looks like the core team doesn’t acknowledge that.

Probably there’s no quick wins here but community feels it’s left behind not only with token utility but with change management as well.

1 Like
7

U r right ,that’s exactly it. I think by the time they realize this, it will be too late.

Apparently, it’s time to give up holding the token and move on to other projects.

8

There are already quite a few projects where the team didn’t listen to their community, and most of them ended up at the bottom.

You’re doing the same thing now, and the chart makes it all pretty clear.

9

First of all, I don’t represent the team (there is also no centralized team opinion). I’m expressing my personal view.
Second, DAO governance is not team vs community. It’s an open debate between participants with different theses. Disagreement is not ignoring the community, it’s part of the discussion.

If there’s a strong economic case for staking or burning – let’s debate it on fundamentals. But reducing the discussion to charts and “you’re not listening” doesn’t move it forward.

11

1.revenue Sharing (Real Yield)

U are dominant staking protocol, generating substantial annual revenue (exceeding $100M+).

The Issue: Currently, 100% of the protocol’s share of fees goes to the DAO Treasury or node operators, while LDO holders capture zero direct value.

The Solution: Directing a portion of protocol fees to LDO stakers creates “Real Yield.” This transforms LDO from a speculative voting chip into a productive asset backed by protocol earnings.

2. Deflationary Pressure and Liquidity Support

A market buyback program directly improves tokenomics:

Supply Reduction: Using protocol surplus to buy LDO off the secondary market reduces circulating supply, creating constant buy-side pressure.

Liquidity Provisioning: Instead of just burning tokens, the DAO can use bought-back LDO to deepen liquidity (e.g., in LDO/wstETH pools), making the token more resilient to large sell-offs.

3. Incentive Alignment

Staking ensures that those governing the protocol have “skin in the game.”

Long-term Commitment: Staking (especially with lock-up periods) filters for holders who prioritize the protocol’s long-term health over short-term price fluctuations.

Competitive Parity: As other major DeFi protocols (like Aave or Uniswap) move toward “fee switch” models, Lido must offer similar utility to remain attractive to capital providers.

4. Market Revaluation (P/S Ratio)

Currently, LDO is often undervalued relative to its massive TVL and revenue because there is no direct link between protocol growth and token value.

Valuation Rerating: Implementing staking and buybacks allows institutional investors to value LDO using traditional metrics (like Price-to-Earnings or Price-to-Sales), potentially leading to a significant market rerating.

13

Shouldn’t YOUR token holders decide this in a vote? Rather than the company forcing them to choose between buybacks or nothing?

Let the community decide what’s best: profit distribution, buybacks, and burning.

Create a vote on this issue on the official Twitter page, and let the community make the choice.

14

1000123668
10001236681080×1186 216 KB
Every normal.project already starting buybacks and burn,while u discussing something,lol

When will be voting?

15

Hello?

On X ,under every post,people everyday asking what about LDO and tokenomic?

Can somebody from team come out and give clear answers to your own community?

16

LDO is not just another token — it represents governance over the most critical staking infrastructure on Ethereum. Destroying or weakening its role through poorly designed tokenomic changes would be a strategic mistake.

LDO should be strengthened, not diminished.

The objective should not be to “destroy” token supply for short-term optics, but to build durable economic alignment between the protocol and its long-term stakeholders. LDO holders secure the governance layer that oversees validator risk, treasury allocation, and protocol evolution. Weakening that layer undermines Lido’s decentralization and long-term resilience.

Instead of destructive mechanisms, the DAO should focus on constructive alignment mechanisms such as:

• Long-term locking or staking mechanisms that strengthen governance commitment
• Sustainable value accrual tied to real protocol surplus, not treasury depletion
• Incentives that reward long-term aligned participants, including node operators and governance contributors
• Preserving LDO as a strategic governance asset, not treating it as expendable supply

Lido’s strength comes from its credibility, stability, and long-term orientation. Short-term token destruction does not create real value — sustainable protocol growth and aligned governance does.

The goal should be to make LDO stronger, more meaningful, and more aligned with Lido’s long-term success — not weaker.