KVORUM
lidoSource: Snapshot · #0x8b8619f09213b868708b25cb2512023234e5e160cba5c291f4e9d944d2ccd3fa

DVT & DVV Incentive Allocation Changes

succeededJan 26, 2026, 04:00 PM UTCsignaling · non-bindingbyFF0xff64…1fceView on Snapshot ↗

01Summary

AISummary by Kvorum

An AI summary is not generated yet. Read the description →

02Description

899 words

Summary

This proposal introduces a variable incentive allocation model for Distributed Validator Technology (DVT) incentives accrued to the Lido protocol, split between Node Operators and the Mellow Distributed Validator Vault (DVV). The proposed new mechanism aims to better reflect the real costs of operating DVT‑based validators under current market conditions for Node Operators in the Curated Module (CM) and the Community Staking Module (CSM).

Instead of a fixed incentive split, Node Operator and Mellow DVV staker allocations would adjust dynamically based on the SSV Network Fee and total incentives accrued. This is intended to support sustainable Node Operator economics and allocation to stakers:

  • when DVT operating costs are high relative to incentives, the Node Operator share increases (up to 50%);
  • when incentives increase or DVT costs decrease, the Node Operator share declines, and more incentives flow to stakers (up to 85%).

The SSV Network Fee and the SSV Incentivized Mainnet Program (IMP) will be viewed as a proxy for certain costs associated with running DVT validators. The proposed share split of the incentives is intended to be equally distributed for Node Operators utilizing either SSV or Obol DVT technology. No changes are proposed to the Simple DVT Module, as DVT provider fees for this module are currently expected to be covered via Node Operator validation rewards.

Background

The SSV DAO recently approved two proposals:

  • [DIP-49] sets a maximum ETH/SSV price ratio of 700 in the Network Fee formula, aligning the Network Fee relative to potential incentive parameters and making the operating costs of running DVT validators that incentives are intended to cover more predictable;
  • [DIP-39] updates the Incentivized Mainnet Program (IMP) by introducing a 15% annual cap on total incentives allocated to the IMP, which may limit the incentive budget available to offset DVT validators operating costs.

Based on these changes, recent market conditions impacting DVT validators incentives, and the related community discussion, it’s proposed to update the initial Mellow DVV incentives allocation structure. The goal is to help mitigate the impact of lower incentives and higher operating costs on Node Operators, while ensuring stakers receive larger allocations as incentives increase.

Proposed Incentive Mechanism

  • The proposed incentive mechanism is self-adjusting and based on predefined parameters: SSV Incentive Rate and Network Fee.
  • Under the new allocation structure, the incentive split between Node Operators and stakers is no longer fixed. Instead, it changes depending on the relationship between incentives and DVT operating costs:
    • when DVT operating costs are high relative to incentives, the Node Operator share increases (up to 50%);
    • when incentives increase or DVT costs decrease, the Node Operator share decreases, and more incentives flow to Mellow DVV stakers (up to 85%).
  • The SSV Network Fee and the SSV Incentivized Mainnet Program (IMP) are proposed to be viewed as a proxy for certain costs associated with running DVT validators.
  • The proposed incentive structure applies to CM and CSM Node Operators using either SSV or Obol DVT providers.
  • Incentive shares are dynamically calculated monthly, aligned with SSV IMP incentive distribution timing.

Detailed Allocation Logic

  1. SSV Network Fee Coverage: up to 50% of total incentives may be allocated to Node Operators to cover the SSV Network Fee.
  2. Surplus incentives distribution: any incentives remaining after the Network Fee is covered are allocated
    • 90% to stakers;
    • 10% to Node Operators.
  3. Node Operator Share Bounds: the Node Operator share is always kept between a minimum 15% and a maximum 50% of total incentives.

Illustrative scenarios

The table below shows indicative splits under a range of Incentive Rate and Network Fee rate scenarios. These examples are illustrative only and based on hypothetical scenarios. Actual incentive allocations may differ based on the Incentive Rate and the Network Fee at a given time.

ScenarioIncentive RateNetwork FeeNode Operator shareStaker share
11.50%0.75%50.00%50.00%
21.80%0.90%50.00%50.00%
32.00%1.00%50.00%50.00%
43.00%1.00%40.00%60.00%
55.00%1.00%28.00%72.00%
66.00%1.00%25.00%75.00%
79.00%1.00%20.00%80.00%

For example, in a hypothetical scenario where the SSV incentive rate is approximately 6% and the SSV token price is around $10, this model would result in:

  • A 25% Node Operator incentive share, representing a modest improvement over current CM and CSM splits.

At the extremes:

  • Low incentive environments (≤2%): Node Operators' allocations could increase up to 50%, with no surplus beyond cost coverage.
  • High incentive environments (≈9%): Node Operator share could approach the 15% minimum, with the majority of value accruing to stakers.

Next Steps

If this Snapshot vote is supported by the DAO, the new incentive mechanism would be implemented on an ongoing basis via coordination between contributors to the Lido Foundations and the SSV IMP administrator, starting with the January rewards distribution following SSV’s distribution of January incentives, in line with the execution steps outlined in the Lido Research forum thread tracking incentive distribution. These changes do not require an Aragon on-chain vote.

03Mismatch analysis

AIMismatch analysis by Kvorum

A calldata-vs-description analysis is not generated yet. Review the decoded actions →

04Actions

0 total

This proposal carries no on-chain actions.

05Tally

Summed from votes

Voters91
VP participating0
Outcome (current)For
Current support100%

06Voters

91 total
Filter:
VoterChoice% of totalRationale
420x42e6…3fb0For017.27%—10mo ago
4A0x4af8…6a0bFor016.50%—10mo ago
6C0x6cd6…b52eFor013.11%—10mo ago
810x8172…922eFor09.84%—10mo ago
7E0x7ee0…bb6cFor09.20%—10mo ago
LIlido.banteg.eth0x55bc…f0faFor06.37%—10mo ago
9C0x9ca8…36afFor05.76%—10mo ago
AE0xae09…256bFor04.22%—10mo ago
6D0x6d8d…0cccFor03.29%—10mo ago
3F0x3fb1…4c8aFor03.06%—10mo ago
6F0x6f9b…8a1dFor02.87%—10mo ago
B60xb664…f890For02.22%—10mo ago
310x3133…5c00For02.11%—10mo ago
A40xa418…b737For01.84%—10mo ago
1F0x1f76…5ed6For00.82%—10mo ago
E80xe80e…28e8For00.42%—10mo ago
9C0x9cbc…7519For00.31%—10mo ago
060x06a9…bba0For00.21%—10mo ago
360x36f7…a589For00.15%—10mo ago
390x3940…a5fcFor00.15%—10mo ago
3D0x3ddc…05b0For00.10%—10mo ago
8E0x8e18…8c7bFor00.06%—10mo ago
B90xb933…8dd1For00.06%—10mo ago
5F0x5fdc…b69fFor00.05%—10mo ago
440x442d…44afFor00.01%—10mo ago
C50xc554…7759For00.00%—10mo ago
3A0x3a5c…ca89For00.00%—10mo ago
050x0579…ca09For00.00%—10mo ago
3D0x3d5a…b97fFor00.00%—10mo ago
1D0x1d71…b6b0For00.00%—10mo ago
A90xa9bf…1577For00.00%—10mo ago
B10xb1f8…4250For00.00%—10mo ago
F80xf804…9d2eFor00.00%—10mo ago
CC0xcc44…dc23For00.00%—10mo ago
640x6409…8590For00.00%—10mo ago
050x058e…d205Against00.00%—10mo ago
D90xd929…5e47For00.00%—10mo ago
100x10e3…b4a7For00.00%—10mo ago
EB0xebc9…7013Against00.00%—10mo ago
BF0xbff4…030fFor00.00%—10mo ago
B90xb93e…02fcFor00.00%—10mo ago
A70xa7b5…49f2For00.00%—10mo ago
A00xa0c3…d7b5For00.00%—10mo ago
500x500f…7d0bFor00.00%—10mo ago
4D0x4d32…bbfaFor00.00%—10mo ago
9D0x9d57…65a5For00.00%—10mo ago
170x1729…b879For00.00%—9mo ago
2F0x2f2f…f78aFor00.00%—10mo ago
B30xb3bf…6ce4For00.00%—10mo ago
BF0xbfd1…4f66For00.00%—10mo ago
Showing 50

07Forum

No forum thread is confidently linked to this proposal.

08Similar proposals

AI · embeddings

No semantically similar proposals found yet.