Governance power becomes unmoored from the underlying asset. A user holding stETH votes on Ethereum's future but faces zero direct slashing risk for bad decisions. This creates a principal-agent problem where the agent's incentives are misaligned.
dao-governance-lessons-from-the-frontlines
Blog
Why Staking Derivatives Threaten Governance Integrity
Liquid staking tokens like stETH create a systemic risk by separating governance rights from economic skin-in-the-game, enabling low-cost attacks on critical DeFi protocols. This is not a hypothetical—it's an active vulnerability.
introduction
THE DERIVATIVE DILEMMA
The Governance Loophole No One Is Fixing
Staking derivatives like Lido's stETH and Rocket Pool's rETH create a systemic risk where governance power becomes untethered from economic interest.
Vote markets will emerge as a rational economic response. Platforms like Agora or Tally will formalize this, allowing derivative holders to sell voting power to the highest bidder. This commoditizes governance and centralizes influence.
Liquid staking protocols like Lido already demonstrate this flaw. Their governance token, LDO, controls a treasury of staked ETH, but LDO holders do not bear the slashing risk of the validators they govern. The risk/reward profile is broken.
The evidence is in the data. On EigenLayer, restaked stETH constitutes a majority of TVL. This means the security of hundreds of AVSs is ultimately governed by actors who are insulated from the core protocol's penalty mechanisms.
key-trends
WHY STAKING DERIVATIVES THREATEN GOVERNANCE INTEGRITY
The Anatomy of an Empty Vote
Liquid staking tokens like Lido's stETH have decoupled voting power from economic interest, creating a systemic risk where governance is controlled by passive capital.
01
The Liquidity-Voting Power Decoupling
Staking derivatives create a principal-agent problem where the token holder (principal) delegates voting rights to the protocol (agent) by default. This separates the economic interest in the derivative's price from the governance responsibility for the underlying chain.
- Example: Lido's stETH holders vote on Lido DAO matters, not Ethereum governance.
- Result: The entity with the largest TVL (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool) amasses outsized, often unexercised, voting power on its host chain.
~$30B+
Decoupled TVL
0%
Direct Stake
02
The Protocol-as-Voter Problem
Protocols like Lido and Rocket Pool vote as monolithic blocs using tokens representing user deposits. This centralizes decision-making into a few technical committees, defeating the decentralized ethos of on-chain governance.
- Mechanism: Voting power is often exercised by a multi-sig or small set of node operators.
- Risk: Creates a governance cartel where a handful of derivative protocols can collude to capture chain upgrades, akin to the Curve Wars but for Layer 1s.
5-10
Key Entities
>30%
Voting Share
03
The Economic Abstraction Attack
Derivative holders are economically incentivized to maximize their token's yield and liquidity, not the health of the underlying chain. This misalignment can lead to votes that optimize for short-term derivative utility over long-term protocol security.
- Attack Vector: Voting for higher inflation (more staking rewards) at the expense of token holder dilution.
- Real Risk: A derivative-dominated governance could vote against necessary but costly security upgrades (e.g., increasing validator hardware requirements).
Yield > Security
Incentive Misalignment
High
Systemic Risk
04
The Solution: Enshrined Restaking & Dual Governance
Emerging designs like EigenLayer's cryptoeconomic security and Cosmos' native liquid staking module aim to realign incentives. The most promising fix is dual governance, where derivative holders and native stakers both have veto power.
- Example: Frax Finance's veFXS model for its frxETH derivative.
- Goal: Force critical decisions to achieve consensus across both the derivative liquidity layer and the native security layer.
Dual Veto
Governance Model
Required
For L1 Security
deep-dive
THE GOVERNANCE DILUTION
Decoupling Power from Consequence
Liquid staking derivatives separate the economic stake from the governance vote, creating a misalignment that threatens protocol security.
Voting without skin in the game is the core flaw. Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH grant voting rights to holders who face no direct slashing risk for bad governance decisions, unlike the underlying node operators.
The liquidity premium distorts incentives. A derivative holder's primary goal is maximizing yield and exit liquidity on Curve or Balancer, not long-term protocol health, leading to short-sighted governance.
This creates a principal-agent problem. The agent (derivative holder) votes with the principal's (node operator's) stake. This is evident in votes where stETH holders supported high-inflation proposals on Lido that benefited liquidity over node operator revenue.
Evidence: On Ethereum, Lido controls ~32% of staked ETH. A governance attack via its derivative could pass proposals without a single entity risking slashing, a systemic risk the Ethereum Foundation has warned against.
THE LIQUID STAKING DILEMMA
Governance Power vs. Economic Stake: A Comparative Snapshot
Compares the alignment of governance rights with economic stake across different staking models, highlighting the systemic risk of liquid staking derivatives (LSDs).
| Governance Feature / Metric | Native Staking (e.g., Solana, Cosmos) | Liquid Staking Token (e.g., Lido's stETH, Rocket Pool's rETH) | Restaking (e.g., EigenLayer, Babylon) |
|---|---|---|---|
Governance Rights Attached to Derivative | |||
Voting Power Decoupled from Underlying Stake | 0% |
| 100% (via AVS operator) |
Protocol Revenue Accrues to Voter | Conditional (AVS-specific) | ||
Slashing Risk Borne by Voter | |||
Typical Centralization of Voting Power (Top 5 Entities) | 15-40% | 60-90% (e.g., Lido DAO) | TBD (Early Stage) |
Ability to Delegate Voting (Liquid Democracy) | Native (e.g., Cosmos) | Via LST Provider DAO | Via Operator/AVS |
Example of Governance Attack Surface | Validator Cartel | LST Provider DAO Takeover (e.g., Lido) | Restaking Pool Dominance |
case-study
GOVERNANCE ATTACK VECTORS
Protocols in the Crosshairs
Staking derivatives decouple economic interest from voting power, creating systemic risks for on-chain governance.
01
The Liquid Staking Leviathan
Lido's $30B+ stETH creates a single point of failure. Governance of Ethereum, Aave, and Uniswap can be influenced by a handful of DAO members controlling the staking derivative's voting power, not the underlying asset owners.
- Concentrated Power: ~5 entities control LidoDAO votes.
- Protocol Capture: Enables cheap governance attacks on integrated DeFi.
$30B+
TVL at Risk
~5
Key Voters
02
The Rehypothecation Cascade
Derivatives like rETH or cbETH are used as collateral across Compound, Aave, and Maker. Liquidations or governance manipulation in one protocol can trigger systemic failure.
- Collateral Fragility: A governance attack on the derivative can crater its price.
- Contagion Risk: Cascading liquidations across $10B+ in DeFi loans.
$10B+
DeFi Exposure
High
Contagion Risk
03
Vote Markets & MEV
Platforms like Paladin and Agora allow voting power delegation for profit. This commoditizes governance, incentivizing short-term mercenary voting over protocol health.
- MEV Extraction: Voters front-run governance outcomes.
- Integrity Erosion: Decisions are made by rent-seekers, not stakeholders.
Mercenary
Voter Incentive
High
MEV Potential
04
The Dual-Class Share Structure
Similar to Curve's vote-escrow model, staking derivatives create a two-tier system: derivative holders (economic interest) vs. governance token holders (voting power). This misalignment is exploitable.
- Governance Arbitrage: Attackers can accumulate cheap voting power.
- Example: An attacker could sway a Compound vote by targeting stETH governance, not COMP.
Critical
Misalignment
Direct
Attack Path
05
Solution: Enshrined Restaking
EigenLayer's model explicitly bakes slashing for governance attacks into its core protocol. This creates a cryptoeconomic cost for malicious voting, realigning incentives.
- Slashing Risk: $15B+ in restaked assets can be penalized.
- Deterrent Effect: Makes large-scale governance attacks prohibitively expensive.
$15B+
Restaked TVL
Slashing
Enforced Cost
06
Solution: Governance Abstraction Layers
Protocols like Maker are exploring direct representation of staked assets (e.g., stETH as a DSR vault) to bypass derivative governance. This returns voting power to the end-user.
- Direct Delegation: Users delegate voting power from their staked asset.
- Systemic Fix: Removes the intermediary governance layer entirely.
Direct
Voter Control
Eliminated
Intermediary Risk
counter-argument
THE AGENCY PROBLEM
The Rebuttal: "But Voters Are Rational"
The economic incentives of staking derivatives create a fundamental misalignment between token holders and the underlying protocol's governance.
Voter Rationality is Irrelevant. Rational economic actors optimize for their own portfolio, not protocol health. A voter holding liquid staking tokens (LSTs) like Lido's stETH or Rocket Pool's rETH votes to maximize the derivative's value, which is a function of staking yield and liquidity premium, not necessarily the underlying chain's long-term security or decentralization.
Governance Becomes a Yield-Farming Game. This creates a principal-agent problem. The agent (LST holder) has different utility functions than the principal (native staker). Proposals are evaluated on short-term yield impact, not technical merit. This is evident in votes favoring inflationary rewards or risky integrations that boost TVL but dilute security.
Evidence from DeFi Governance. Look at Compound or Aave governance. Voters with borrowed or leveraged positions consistently support proposals that protect their collateral ratios, even if it harms the protocol's risk parameters. LST governance will replicate this, with votes directed by derivative mechanics, not chain fundamentals.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Frequently Challenged Questions
Common questions about how staking derivatives like Lido's stETH and Rocket Pool's rETH can undermine the decentralized governance of underlying blockchains.
Liquid staking tokens like Lido's stETH centralize voting power, creating a single point of failure for blockchain governance. A handful of node operators controlling a supermajority of stake can dictate protocol upgrades, undermining the decentralized ethos of networks like Ethereum. This concentration is a systemic risk.
takeaways
GOVERNANCE DILUTION
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Staking derivatives abstract economic security from governance rights, creating systemic risks for decentralized protocols.
01
The Liquidity-Voting Decoupling
Derivatives like Lido's stETH and Rocket Pool's rETH separate the staked asset from its governance power. This creates a passive yield-seeking class that outsources voting, concentrating influence in a few node operators or DAOs.
- Voter apathy is institutionalized via liquid staking tokens (LSTs).
- Protocol upgrades face lower participation, increasing the power of remaining whales.
- The economic security of the chain (TVL) no longer correlates with its governance security.
>30%
Stake via LSTs
<5%
LST Voter Turnout
02
The Rehypothecation Attack Vector
Staked assets are leveraged across DeFi (e.g., as collateral on Aave, Compound), creating layered claims on the same governance rights. A lender can effectively control voting power they do not economically own.
- Enables vote market manipulation without capital lock-up.
- Flash loan governance attacks become cheaper and more scalable.
- Undermines the skin-in-the-game principle fundamental to PoS security.
5-10x
Leverage Multiplier
$0
Attack Upfront Cost
03
The Centralization Endpoint: Restaking
EigenLayer and similar restaking protocols amplify the problem by allowing the same stake to secure multiple networks. This creates a meta-governance layer where a handful of restaking operators control critical slashing conditions across ecosystems.
- Systemic risk is concentrated in a few entities (e.g., Figment, Staked).
- Creates governance blackmail scenarios where operators can threaten chains.
- Turns decentralized validators into too-big-to-fail systemic pillars.
$15B+
Restaked TVL
<10
Dominant Operators
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall