Skip to main content

Livepeer Delegator Growth — Tokenomics Ideas

Goal: bring net-new delegators + stake into Livepeer (not just reshuffling existing LPT), while improving retention and stake decentralization.

This is written as a menu of mechanisms (protocol-level vs. “program-level”) plus a few concrete, parameterizable program designs.

What the Arbitrum on-chain data says (2022-02-11 → 2026-01-17)​

All numbers below are from RPC eth_getLogs scans of the Arbitrum BondingManager proxy 0x35Bcf3c30594191d53231E4FF333E8A770453e40 (no explorer keys). Full artifacts live under artifacts/livepeer-bm-scan-arbitrum-v2/ and summarized in fundraising/livepeer-delegator-outflows-research.md.

  • New delegators are trending down: 2,213 (2022) → 1,492 (2023) → 685 (2024) → 482 (2025).
  • Early churn exists, but it’s not a “thousands/day” sybil wave:
    • Overall (eligible-only): unbond within 30d 10.78%, within 90d 17.24% (artifacts/livepeer-bm-scan-arbitrum-v2/retention_report.md).
    • Max unique unbonders in a day: 122 (through 2026-01-17) (artifacts/livepeer-bm-scan-arbitrum-v2/unbond_report.embedded.md).
  • Rewards are highly concentrated:
    • Total staking rewards claimed: 17.495M LPT
    • Top 10 earned 33.69%, top 100 earned 75.51% (artifacts/livepeer-bm-scan-arbitrum-v2/earnings_report.md).
  • A large fraction of rewards appears to be extracted (stake leaves BondingManager):
    • Proxy “rewards withdrawn”: 7.198M LPT (upper-bound: 11.292M LPT) (artifacts/livepeer-bm-scan-arbitrum-v2/earnings_report.md).
    • For top “cashout” wallets, post-withdraw LPT transfers are dominated by bridge/burn-to-zero and EOA transfers, with ~0 LPT going back into BondingManager from the same wallets (artifacts/livepeer-bm-scan-arbitrum-v2/outflow_destination_classification_top50.md).

Implication: if Livepeer wants “many more small delegators”, the program should be designed to (1) acquire net-new users, (2) enforce retention/vesting, and (3) avoid simply subsidizing large, already-sophisticated wallets that are likely to cash out and bridge.

Delegator decision model (what you’re competing against)​

Delegators typically optimize for:

  • Net yield: inflation rewards + fee share − orchestration cut − gas/ops costs
  • Liquidity: ability to exit or use the stake elsewhere (DeFi composability)
  • Simplicity: low-friction onboarding, clear “best defaults”, good tooling
  • Downside risk: smart contract risk, orchestrator performance risk, “unknown unknowns”

Tokenomics incentives should primarily target one of these:

  1. increase net yield, 2) reduce friction costs, 3) improve liquidity, 4) reduce downside.

Incentive levers (ordered from “lowest protocol change” to “highest”)​

1) Delegation mining (treasury-funded, time-boxed)​

Allocate a fixed incentive budget (e.g., X LPT) distributed to eligible delegators over a defined window.

Design knobs:

  • Eligibility: new-to-delegation addresses, new capital, minimum stake, lock/retention requirement
  • Distribution curve: linear, capped, non-linear (e.g., sqrt) to reduce whale dominance
  • Retention: vesting over N rounds; clawback/forfeit on early unbond
  • Decentralization: multiplier for delegating to under-staked orchestrators

Implementation path (no core protocol change): periodic Merkle drops (monthly/weekly) based on snapshot rules.

2) Gas subsidies / “first delegation” rebates​

For many retail delegators, Ethereum gas makes small stakes irrational.

Program: reimburse (or prepay) gas for bond/rebond/unbond actions, but only after an address remains bonded for N rounds.

This is “tokenomics-adjacent” but often the highest ROI for onboarding.

3) Liquidity: liquid staking + LP incentives​

The biggest unlock for delegator growth is often liquid staking (an LST like stLPT) so delegators can:

  • remain staked (earning inflation/fees)
  • keep liquidity (trade/borrow/LP)

Tokenomics angle: seed and/or incentivize stLPT/LPT and stLPT/ETH liquidity with a time-boxed program.

4) Time-weighted staking (lockup boosts)​

Optional lockups (or continuous-time multipliers) increase retention and can outperform “one-time bonuses”.

Two common patterns:

  • Simple: multiplier ramps up with continuous delegation; resets on unbond
  • Vote-escrow (ve): lock LPT for longer → higher multiplier + governance weight (bigger protocol lift)

5) Real-yield sharing (fees → delegators)​

Delegators like “real yield” (ETH/stable) more than pure inflation.

If protocol/treasury can redirect a portion of revenue (or external grant revenue) into a transparent fee pool distributed to delegators, it tends to attract more new capital than higher inflation alone.

6) Risk reduction: insurance / guarantees​

If delegators perceive orchestrator or protocol risk, yields need to be meaningfully higher to compensate.

Program: create an insurance pool (funded from a small skim of incentives or fees) that covers specific adverse events (e.g., misconfiguration downtime, slashing if applicable), with clear terms.

Concrete program templates (parameterizable)​

Program A: “First Delegation Bonus” (new delegators only)​

Objective: acquire new delegators; require retention.

Rules:

  • Eligible if address has never been bonded before the program start
  • Must bond ≥ min_stake and stay bonded for ≥ retention_rounds
  • Bonus vests linearly over vesting_rounds and is forfeited on early exit

Anti-sybil / anti-whale:

  • Non-linear scaling: bonus = k * sqrt(stake) (plus a hard per-address cap)
  • Minimum stake that makes sybil splitting costly

Program B: “Decentralization Multiplier” (stake where it’s needed)​

Objective: grow total delegated stake and improve stake distribution.

Rules:

  • Base rewards as in Program A or ongoing delegation mining
  • Add multiplier if delegating to orchestrators below a target stake band:
    • e.g., multiplier = clamp(1, 1 + (targetStake - orchStake)/targetStake, max=2)

Guardrails:

  • Prevent gaming via orchestrator self-delegation rules or explicit exclusions
  • Cap per-orchestrator inflow if needed to avoid sudden centralization

Program C: “LST Bootstrapping” (liquid staking adoption)​

Objective: attract DeFi-native delegators.

Rules:

  • Incentivize LP positions for stLPT/ETH (and/or stLPT/LPT) for a fixed duration
  • Pair with education + integrations (vaults, money markets)

Guardrails:

  • Time-box incentives (avoid permanent mercenary liquidity)
  • Concentrate rewards early, then taper (bootstrap not subsidize forever)

Program D: “Small Delegator Boost” (progressive rewards) + sybil resistance​

Objective: aggressively raise small-delegator APR without getting sybil-split by whales.

Key constraint (important): any scheme that gives “more rewards to smaller balances per address” is sybilable unless you can key it to a unique identity (or make sybil expensive via “work” requirements).

Two practical patterns:

  1. Boosted tranche per unique identity
  • Each unique delegator identity gets a boosted APR (or bonus) on their first cap LPT staked; above cap earns normal APR.
  • Example “effective stake” for bonus weighting: eff = min(s, cap) + (s - cap) * w, where w << 1 (e.g., 0.1) and s is stake per identity.
  • The bonus pool is distributed by eff (or you directly mint bonus shares on the tranche).
  1. Fixed “per-unique-delegator” stipend
  • Every eligible unique delegator gets a fixed bonus after bonding and meeting retention (strongly favors small).

Sybil resistance options (choose at least one):

  • Proof-of-personhood / identity attestation: Gitcoin Passport / World ID / BrightID-style proof, anchored via an on-chain attestation (e.g., EAS). Bonus claims require the attestation and are limited “one per identity”.
  • Work-based gating: require a verifiable “work receipt” per period (e.g., paid Livepeer usage minutes / fees generated / ecosystem contribution attestations). This doesn’t guarantee uniqueness, but makes sybil materially costly.
  • Retention + vesting: rewards vest over N rounds; early unbond forfeits (reduces “farm and dump”).

Where stLPT fits:

  • Easiest: keep protocol rewards unchanged; distribute the bonus as extra LPT/stLPT to small delegators (treasury-funded).
  • Harder/optional: implement the progressive boost inside an stLPT vault (progressive share minting / progressive fee redistribution). This only works if large holders opt in, so it’s best paired with strong utility (liquidity/DeFi integrations) that makes stLPT desirable even with reduced marginal yield at high balances.

Metrics + guardrails (how you know it worked)​

Primary KPIs:

  • Net new bonded stake (total + per-orchestrator distribution)
  • # of new delegators (first-time bonders)
  • Retention (still bonded after 30/60/90 days)
  • Cost per $ of net new stake (incentive spend / net new stake)
  • Stake decentralization (Gini / top-N share)

Operational guardrails:

  • program is time-boxed
  • rewards are predictable (avoid surprise parameter changes)
  • incentives do not materially reduce orchestrator incentives to perform

App-layer “distribution wedge” ideas (if you want delegators via a product)​

If you can acquire users via a product surface, you can convert a subset into Livepeer delegators by tying delegation to utility:

  • Stake-to-unlock: discount tiers, higher-quality video, or premium avatars unlocked by delegated LPT (with a lock/retention requirement)
  • Creator pools: “delegate to support this avatar/creator” and share a portion of creator revenue back to delegators (off-chain accounting is simplest)
  • Gasless onboarding: the app fronts gas and recoups via retention rules (delegators stick around long enough to justify CAC)

These don’t require Livepeer protocol changes; they’re an app-layer growth engine for the network.