Thanks for sharing your view.. tbh if this were about my personal preferences or “what I vibe with,” I’d probably end up with a very different allocation as well. Most of us have strong opinions on which projects feel useful, credible, or aligned.
But the way I see it, the key constraint here is that stake.link’s allocations will be the only ones that are fully public, and because of the size of the pool we represent, they will inevitably be interpreted as a signal. That dynamic is very different from individual stakers allocating privately.
Even though we currently represent +10% of all LINK staked and will not receive 10% of all the cubes, our choices are still highly visible. If the DAO allocates purely based on “I like this / I don’t like that,” we risk sending the wrong kind of signal.
That’s why my approach leans toward strategic alignment weighting rather than personal flavour. It’s not about liking or disliking tokens, founders, or business models. It’s about recognising that:
- our allocations will be scrutinised,
- they help shape the relationships we can build, and
- they can create future opportunities for stLINK, stPOL, or new LSTs we may support.
I fully agree that Dolomite, Folks and XSwap provide immediate utility today. The question for me is whether we want to maximise “what feels good today,” or whether we use this season to strengthen the broader stake.link platform for the long run.
Happy to discuss the SxT nuance. I think that’s where most of the disagreement actually lives. Core contributors have been in the talks about building a new LST with them following this TEMP-CHECK, and happy to get their insights and adjust if they see no interest from Space and Time side but overall I think we should ground the DAO’s allocation in strategy over taste, precisely because personal allocations and DAO allocations live in two different worlds.