This is a paragraph from the discussion link.
“While LDO holders should generally be motivated to maintain the protocol’s well-being since it’s reflected in the LDO token price, it doesn’t necessarily mean that LDO holders efficiently represent the protocol users. For example, imagine that LDO holders collectively decide to increase the protocol fees: while this might have a positive effect on the LDO holders’ immediate well-being, it is clearly against the interests of at least some portion of the protocol users.”
-
Why create the LDO token in the first place if its holder will never efficiently represent the protocol users?
-
Why not instead just govern the protocol by the stETH holders? .Why nobody thought of this in the initial stage of the project development?
-
Was the LDO token just created for funding the project in the initial stage and for the VCs/team to cash in later by dumping in on retail once that vesting schedule ends?
Take for example Alongside Finance.
It offers an index fund token AMKT. All the smart contracts and the parameters and asset inclusion all of this is governed by the AMKT DAO. The people eligible for voting for AMKT DAO are the AMKT token holders which is the product itself that Alongside Finance offers. The team did not create another AMKTGOV token for the governance of the index fund protocol and then gave VETO powers to the AMKT token holders.
Conclusion:
It is a hard pill to swallow but the dual governance model is the solution to the problem that was created by Lido Finance itself by introducing the LDO token. I hold LDO token myself…but I now understand that I am making a mistake and I am too dumb to hold. The stETH holder is the one who has skin in the game and can truly represent himself period.