As someone who has supported Livepeer since the earliest days of the project, I’m genuinely concerned about the timing of LIP-107. In my view, passing this proposal right now would introduce unnecessary risk.
To be clear, I’m not opposed to change. I understand the importance of evolving token economics over time. However, I don’t believe the timing is appropriate, nor do I think the case for this specific proposal is sufficiently compelling to justify the risk.
Participation is above 50%, inflation is trending lower, and the system is functioning as intended. From where we stand today, the core mechanics are working well.
I would also argue that, particularly in the current environment, rewards remain a meaningful differentiator for Livepeer. From both an optics and positioning standpoint, our relatively low supply compared to many other projects is a structural advantage. It allows us to offer attractive rewards while maintaining strong alignment and engagement. This is a strength that should be preserved unless there is a clearly superior alternative.
Over the longer term, I am open to thoughtful and well-justified changes. But I believe any adjustment should be driven by a stronger, more compelling proposal — one that is clearly aligned with Livepeer’s growth trajectory, reinforces network participation, and minimizes unnecessary risk.
Market conditions remain fragile, and this is not the moment to introduce changes that lack sufficient justification and could carry asymmetric downside.
For these reasons, I do not support LIP-107 in its current form. Instead, I would encourage continued discussion and the development of a more compelling alternative that better reflects the network’s strengths and long-term objectives.