The ongoing discussion highlights something important: trying to optimise for short-term USD value in Season 1 is the wrong game. The BUILD reward interface creates a zero-sum environment where the DAO has no informational edge, because every participant can see aggregate allocations updating in real time. Chasing speculative redemption dynamics reduces SDL governance to a reflexive arbitrage exercise, and it delivers no strategic advantage for the protocol.
The real opportunity is to use this season to strengthen the stake.link platform itself. stLINK is our flagship LST, but the platform is broader than any single asset. What matters long term is expanding the network of protocols that integrate with stake.link, deepening relationships with high-synergy BUILD partners, and positioning the platform to support future LSTs, whether based on LINK or on other assets from partners. A network-effect strategy compounds; a value-farming strategy does not.
For that reason, an alignment-weighted approach should be our baseline. Instead of distributing cubes uniformly or according to speculative token valuations, we should anchor weights in the projects that:
• can directly integrate stLINK in the near term
• strengthen the security or data foundations of the stake.link platform
• create new yield, liquidity, or collateral pathways for our users
• could support or interoperate with future stake.link LSTs
• reinforce Chainlink’s core infrastructure, which directly benefits SDL’s trust model
This framing naturally leads to higher conviction in lending markets and core data infrastructure, measured conviction in interoperability and analytics, and lighter exposure to lower-synergy verticals. It also keeps us aligned with previous SLURP guidance without re-explaining it to the community.
Season 1 Project Mapping and Strategic Value Assessment
The 9 eligible projects span diverse Web3 verticals, including AI, DePIN, derivatives, lending,
and tokenized assets. The strategic assessment filters these projects based on their immediate
and future impact on the stLINK ecosystem.
Projects demonstrating the highest potential for enhancing stLINK’s composability and security
infrastructure are identified as High Priority. This includes DeFi lending protocols, which are
crucial for LST utilization, and core data services secured by Chainlink.
| Project Name | Sector/Vertical | P2 Synergy Rationale for stLINK | Target Allocation Tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dolomite | Lending/DeFi | Crucial LST composability; potential for direct stLINK lending markets. | High Priority |
| Folks Finance | Lending/DeFi | High-profile lending/yield platform; immediate structure for stLINK yield optimization. | High Priority |
| Space and Time | Data/AI/DePIN | Core verifiable data warehouse infrastructure; strengthens Chainlink service security. | High Priority |
| Truf Network (Truflation) | Oracle/RWA | Specialized RWA/CPI data oracle; reinforces Chainlink’s foundational data security role. | Medium Priority |
| bitsCrunch | AI/NFT Analytics | Supports data integrity and market analytics; relevant for enterprise and Web3 data solutions. | Medium Priority |
| XSwap | DEX/Interoperability | Improves stLINK market access and cross-chain liquidity pool potential. | Medium Priority |
| Mind Network | Privacy/Security | Provides a critical privacy layer; supports institutional data requirements. | Low Priority |
| Brickken | Tokenized Assets | Real-World Asset (RWA) tokenization; essential for alignment with future financial trends. | Low Priority |
| Suku | Gaming/NFTs | General Web3 ecosystem; lowest operational synergy with LSP infrastructure. | Low Priority |
Allocation Scenario Analysis
| Strategic Criterion | Scenario A: Equal Weight | Scenario B: Value-Weighted | Scenario C: Alignment-Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 Adherence (Value/Yield) | Highly Inefficient (dilutes strategic gain) | High Volatility (relies on speculative pricing) | Optimized for Yield in Strategic Sectors |
| P2 Adherence (Synergy) | Lowest Alignment (uniform dilution across all projects) | Uncontrolled alignment (dependent on market cap) | Highest Strategic Alignment and LST Utility |
| Risk Profile (Diversification) | Moderate (safe but inefficient) | High (concentrated speculative bet) | Moderate-Low (concentrated bet on known utility) |
| Recommendation | Rejected | Rejected | Adopted |
Scenario A (Equal Weight) is rejected due to its failure to apply P1 and P2 criteria, yielding suboptimal economic returns. Scenario B (Value-Weighted) is rejected because it requires substantial speculative forecasting of market caps, introducing unnecessary volatility and potentially concentrating Cubes in projects with low operational synergy with stLINK. Scenario C (Alignment-Weighted) is chosen because it uses P2 as the primary filter, selecting projects that inherently reinforce stake.link’s mission, thereby maximizing the long-term benefit for stLINK holders while simultaneously exploiting the dynamic redemption mechanism to maximize yield (P1).
Proposed Optimal Allocation (Scenario C)
| Project Name | Allocation Rationale (P1 & P2 Score) | Proposed Cube Allocation Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Dolomite | High P1, High P2 (Core LST Lending) | 18% |
| Folks Finance | High P1, High P2 (Core LST Lending) | 18% |
| Space and Time | High P1, High P2 (Data Infrastructure) | 16% |
| Truf Network (Truflation) | Moderate P1, High P2 (Oracle/RWA) | 10% |
| bitsCrunch | Moderate P1, Moderate P2 (AI/Data) | 8% |
| XSwap | Moderate P1, Moderate P2 (Interoperability) | 8% |
| Mind Network | Lower P1, Mid P2 (Security/Privacy) | 7% |
| Brickken | Lower P1, Mid P2 (RWA/Tokenized Assets) | 7% |
| Suku | Lower P1, Low P2 (Diversification/Gaming) | 8% |
| TOTAL | 100% |
With that context established, the key question for the DAO is simply whether the proposed high-synergy tiering matches the platform’s long-term priorities. If anyone believes a project’s tier should be shifted (up or down) the discussion should focus on concrete integration potential, not price speculation. Likewise, if weights need adjustment, the rationale should rest on how much influence each project can have on stake.link’s future utility, not the absolute market value of its reward token.
On execution: cubes expire as soon as the final snapshot is taken on 9 December, so we need to converge well before then, and give the multisig enough buffer to execute cleanly. We should also reaffirm a clear stance against early unlocks so that the protocol benefits fully from the Loyalty Pool rather than forfeiting rewards.
This season gives stake.link a moment to set the tone for how we operate: strategically, not reactively; focused on building durable integrations, not on chasing marginal redemption advantages; committed to reinforcing our position in the Chainlink ecosystem and expanding the relevance of the stake.link platform over time. A network-effect allocation is the only path that compounds value for SDL holders across seasons.
I beleive we can proceed with execution if community consent is clearly expressed in the thread and aligns with the process defined under SLURP-45, but we should retain the possibility of a Snapshot vote if consensus is not obvious. The aim is simply to converge efficiently and act in alignment as a community; we make the best decisions when we move together.