Governance is a cash flow: Token holders control the protocol's fee switch and treasury, directly capturing the economic output of pooled capital. This is a superior model to simple yield farming.
liquid-staking-and-the-restaking-revolution
Blog
Why Staking Pool Governance Tokens Are Undervalued Assets
An analysis of how governance over critical staking infrastructure like Lido and EigenLayer represents a non-cash-flow claim on the political future of blockchains, creating a persistent valuation gap.
introduction
THE GOVERNANCE PREMIUM
Introduction
Staking pool governance tokens are mispriced because their value accrual is misunderstood.
The market misprices optionality: Tokens like Lido's LDO or Rocket Pool's RPL are valued as utility tokens, not as equity in the largest capital allocators on Ethereum. Their governance dictates billions in staked ETH.
Evidence: Lido governs over $30B in staked assets, yet its fully diluted valuation is a fraction of that. This discount ignores the fee-generating power of its validator set and future revenue from restaking via EigenLayer.
thesis-statement
THE MISPRICING
The Core Thesis: Governance as a Non-Cash-Flow Claim
Staking pool governance tokens are mispriced because their value accrual is mis-modeled as a cash-flow asset instead of a control premium.
Governance is a control premium that markets price incorrectly. Analysts treat tokens like Lido's LDO as yield-bearing assets, but their real value is protocol parameter control. This is analogous to valuing a company's voting shares solely on dividends.
The value accrual is non-linear. A 1% fee increase on $30B in staked ETH via a governance vote creates more value than years of token emissions. This option value on parameter changes is the core asset, not the fee stream itself.
Compare LDO to Rocket Pool's RPL. LDO governs a monolithic pool with centralized operators; RPL governs a permissionless node operator network. The governance claim on a credibly neutral infrastructure layer carries a higher strategic premium, which current pricing ignores.
Evidence: Lido DAO controls $30B+ in staked ETH. A single governance proposal can alter fee structures, slashing conditions, and treasury allocation. This embedded leverage on the Ethereum validator set is not reflected in LDO's fully diluted valuation of ~$3B.
market-context
THE MISPRICING
Current Market Myopia
The market incorrectly prices staking pool governance tokens as simple yield utilities, ignoring their structural role as the base layer for all on-chain economic activity.
Governance tokens are infrastructure equity. Protocols like Lido (LDO) and Rocket Pool (RPL) are not just yield services; they are the foundational settlement and security layer for DeFi. Their tokens govern the capital and software that secures billions in TVL.
The market misprices cash flow rights. Analysts value LDO solely on staking fees, ignoring its control over the stETH derivative, which is the primary collateral asset on Aave and Compound. This is analogous to valuing a central bank for its transaction fees.
Evidence: Lido commands a ~$30B TVL with a ~$2B FDV, a 15x ratio. A traditional financial infrastructure firm with equivalent custody would trade at a premium, not a steep discount. This discount exists because the market fails to model protocol-owned liquidity and economic security as assets.
key-trends
WHY STAKING POOL TOKENS ARE UNDERVALUED
Three Trends Creating the Valuation Gap
Staking pool governance tokens are mispriced due to a failure to price in their structural advantages and future optionality.
01
The Problem: MEV as a Tax on Stakers
Traditional staking pools leak value to external searchers and builders via Maximal Extractable Value (MEV). This is a direct tax on staker rewards, with ~$1B+ in MEV extracted annually from Ethereum alone.
- Value Leakage: Searchers capture arbitrage and liquidation profits that could accrue to the pool.
- Inefficient Execution: Stakers settle for base protocol rewards, missing out on premium block space value.
- Competitive Disadvantage: Pools without MEV strategies have structurally lower APY.
~$1B+
Annual MEV
-5-15%
APY Leakage
02
The Solution: Integrated MEV Supply Chains
Leading pools like Lido, Rocket Pool, and StakeWise are vertically integrating MEV capture. By operating their own builders (e.g., mev-boost relays) and forming partnerships with Flashbots, they can internalize this revenue stream.
- Revenue Recapture: MEV profits are distributed back to stakers, boosting real yield.
- Protocol-Enforced Sharing: Smart contracts ensure fair distribution, moving beyond trust-based models.
- Future-Proofing: Positions the pool to capture value from PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) and intents.
10-30%
Yield Boost
Vertical
Integration
03
The Optionality: Becoming Layer 1.5
A staking pool with $10B+ TVL is not a passive service; it's a massive, trust-minimized settlement layer. This creates optionality to become a restaking hub for EigenLayer, an intent orchestrator like Anoma, or a cross-chain validator for Cosmos and Polkadot.
- Restaking Flywheel: Native token becomes the trust layer for new AVSs, generating additional fees.
- Infrastructure Monopoly: Control over validator set enables new primitives (e.g., fast finality bridges).
- Governance Capture: Token governs a critical piece of blockchain infrastructure, not just a website.
$10B+
TVL Base
5x+
Revenue Streams
STAKING POOL TOKENS
The Governance Premium: A Comparative Snapshot
A quantitative breakdown of governance token value drivers for major liquid staking protocols, highlighting the embedded premium for protocol control.
| Governance Feature / Metric | Lido (LDO) | Rocket Pool (RPL) | Frax Finance (FXS) | StakeWise (SWISE) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Protocol Fee Control | ||||
Treasury Revenue Share | 10% of staking rewards | 15% of node operator commission | 100% of Frax Ether (frxETH) yield | 90% of fees to SWISE stakers |
Validator Set Control | ||||
Slashing Risk Buffer Fund | $200M+ from treasury | RPL stake from node operators | AMO profits & Frax stablecoin fees | Not applicable |
Token Holder APR from Fees | ~0.5% (estimated) | Up to ~8.4% (from RPL staking) | Variable (frxETH/sFrax yield) | ~3.7% (from fee switch) |
Protocol TVL / Token MCap Ratio | ~12x | ~2x | ~1.5x | ~45x |
Governance Attack Cost (5-Day) | $1.2B | $120M | $450M | $8M |
deep-dive
THE GOVERNANCE PREMIUM
The Mechanics of Political Value Accrual
Staking pool governance tokens are discounted political options on a protocol's future, accruing value through direct fee capture and indirect influence over capital flows.
Governance tokens are political capital. Their value stems from the right to direct protocol fees and treasury assets, not just speculative demand. This is a direct claim on cash flow.
Staking pools centralize this capital. Entities like Lido (stETH) and Rocket Pool (rETH) aggregate user stake, creating concentrated voting blocs. Their governance tokens become proxies for the underlying network's economic security.
The market misprices this optionality. Current valuations reflect utility yield, ignoring the embedded political call option. As protocols like EigenLayer introduce restaking, the governance surface area and value of these tokens expands exponentially.
Evidence: Lido commands ~30% of Ethereum stake. Its LDO token governance controls a multi-billion dollar validator set and a $200M+ treasury, a political asset not reflected in its market cap versus pure revenue.
counter-argument
THE MISPRICING
The Bear Case: Governance is Worthless
Staking pool governance tokens are systematically undervalued because their primary utility—protocol control—is mispriced as a call option on future cash flows.
Governance is a real option. Token voting directly controls protocol parameters like fee switches, treasury allocation, and validator slashing conditions. This is not a speculative feature; it is a financial instrument with quantifiable value, akin to a perpetual call option on the network's economic output. Protocols like Lido and Rocket Pool embed this option in their staking derivatives.
The market misprices optionality. Traders price staking tokens solely on their yield, ignoring the embedded governance premium. This creates a persistent arbitrage where the token's market cap lags the net present value of the cash flows it can direct. Compare LDO's governance over $30B in staked ETH to its sub-$2B market cap.
Evidence from merger activity. The acquisition of StakeWise by Obol Network and the Frax Finance buyout of Stake Ether validate this thesis. These are strategic purchases of governance rights to capture future revenue and direct protocol development, not mere asset accumulation.
risk-analysis
CRITICAL COUNTERPOINTS
Key Risks to the Thesis
Governance tokens for staking pools are not a one-way bet. Here are the primary vectors of failure that could render them worthless.
01
The Regulatory Kill Switch
The SEC's crusade against tokens as unregistered securities directly targets governance tokens with fee-sharing or profit expectations. A successful enforcement action could:
- Cripple liquidity on regulated exchanges (Coinbase, Kraken).
- Force pools to strip utility, turning tokens into pure memecoins.
- Trigger a mass valuation reset across the sector, as seen with lending protocols.
SEC v. Coinbase
Active Case
-90%+
Risk Multiplier
02
The Commoditization Trap
Staking infrastructure is becoming a low-margin utility. If the primary value is just ETH yield, competition from Lido, Rocket Pool, and EigenLayer will drive fees to near zero.
- Governance becomes irrelevant if the only decision is "lower fees."
- Modular middleware (e.g., EigenLayer AVSs) could abstract the pool layer entirely, disintermediating their tokens.
<5%
Fee Floor
Lido
Dominant Player
03
Execution Layer Centralization
The thesis assumes decentralized, credibly neutral execution. Reality: Flashbots, bloXroute, and private order flow dominate.
- If a pool's validator set is captured by a few MEV-seeking entities, its governance token is governance theater.
- Token holders cannot practically enforce slashing for censorship, destroying the core value proposition.
>80%
OFAC Compliance
Flashbots
Market Share
04
The Liquidity Death Spiral
These tokens often lack sustainable, non-inflationary demand. Emission-based incentives create a vicious cycle:
- High APY attracts mercenary capital, not governance-aligned holders.
- When emissions slow, TVL exits, reducing fees and making the token worthless.
- See the crash of DeFi 1.0 governance tokens (e.g., SUSHI, CVX dynamics) as the historical precedent.
>100%
Inflation APY
SUSHI
Precedent
05
Smart Contract Obsolescence
Staking pool smart contracts are high-value, immutable targets. A critical bug or a novel attack vector (e.g., re-staking slashing cascade) could:
- Permanently destroy the underlying capital and trust.
- Be existential, as upgrades often require centralized multi-sigs, negating decentralization claims.
- This is a binary risk not priced into gradual token decay models.
$1B+
Hack Potential
Immutable
Code Risk
06
Ethereum Protocol Risk
The entire staking economy is a derivative of Ethereum's success and design choices. Key risks include:
- EIP-7251 (max effective balance) or other consensus changes that disrupt pool economics.
- Prolonged 0% MEV or tip rewards in a post-4844 environment, crushing profitability.
- Successful alternative L1/L2 staking models that bypass Ethereum's validator set entirely.
EIP-7251
Pending Change
Solana, Celestia
Alternatives
investment-thesis
THE VALUATION GAP
The Asymmetric Bet
Staking pool governance tokens are mispriced because they capture protocol cash flows while controlling the core infrastructure of DeFi.
Governance controls cash flow. Tokens like Lido's LDO and Rocket Pool's RPL govern multi-billion dollar staking pools. This governance right includes fee parameter updates, which directly determines the protocol's revenue share from staking yields.
The market misprices optionality. These tokens are valued as pure governance, ignoring their call option on EigenLayer AVS revenue. Staking pools are the natural operators for Actively Validated Services, creating a new, high-margin revenue stream.
Compare infrastructure vs. application. An application token like Uniswap's UNI earns fees only if its specific DEX is used. A staking pool token like StakeWise's SWISE earns fees from any DeFi protocol built on the secured chain, making it a bet on the entire ecosystem.
Evidence: Fee Switch Multiplier. If Lido activates its 10% fee switch, its annual revenue jumps from $0 to ~$150M. This demonstrates the latent cash flow power currently valued at zero by the market.
takeaways
STAKING POOL GOVERNANCE
TL;DR: Key Takeaways for Builders & Investors
Governance tokens for major staking pools are mispriced as yield utilities, ignoring their structural role as the central coordination layer for Ethereum's security.
01
The Problem: Governance as a Yield Utility
The market prices staking pool tokens like Lido's LDO and Rocket Pool's RPL based on fee revenue, ignoring their control over $40B+ in pooled ETH. This is a fundamental mispricing of political and economic power.
- Control vs. Cashflow: Governance dictates slashing parameters, node operator selection, and treasury allocation.
- Network Effects: Dominant pools like Lido create sticky, protocol-level integrations (e.g., Aave, MakerDAO).
- Valuation Gap: Fee-based models yield low multiples, while control of core infrastructure should command a premium.
$40B+
Controlled TVL
<1%
Fee Revenue
02
The Solution: Protocol Capture & MEV Funnels
Staking pool governance is the gateway to capturing Ethereum's economic base layer, from block building to cross-chain security. This is a more defensible moat than application-layer DeFi.
- MEV Stack: Governance controls the flow of $500M+ annual MEV through builder/relay selection and PBS policies.
- Restaking Primitive: Pools like Lido are launching their own restaking layers (e.g., EigenLayer integrations), creating recursive security flywheels.
- Cross-Chain Security: Pooled stake is the natural collateral for shared security models, competing with Cosmos and Polkadot.
$500M+
Annual MEV
2x
Use Cases
03
The Asymmetric Bet: Lido vs. The Field
Lido's ~30% staking dominance creates a winner-take-most dynamic. Its governance token is a call option on Ethereum's entire validator set, while challengers like Rocket Pool and Frax Finance offer higher risk/reward for decentralization purists.
- Lido's Moats: Curve wars-like integrations, first-mover liquidity, and a DAO treasury larger than most L1s.
- Challenger Thesis: Regulatory scrutiny on centralization pushes value to more decentralized pools, benefiting RPL and sfrxETH.
- Builder Play: New pools must innovate on distributed validator technology (DVT) like Obol and SSV Network to compete.
30%
Market Share
10x+
Treasury Size
04
The Regulatory Hedge: Non-Financial Governance
If staking yield is classified as a security, the governance token's value proposition flips from fee-sharing to pure coordination rights—a potentially safer regulatory asset. This is a hedge against SEC action on Kraken and Coinbase.
- Pure Coordination: Value accrues from managing infrastructure, not distributing profits.
- Legal Precedent: The Howey Test focuses on profit expectation; non-dividend governance tokens may bypass it.
- Investor Implication: This bifurcation creates a new asset class: infrastructure governance, distinct from DeFi governance.
0%
Yield Dependency
High
Legal Optionality
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