If we zoom out a bit, one thing that stands out is that this discussion is happening before we’ve even had an open conversation about the FY2026 budget. SLURP-42 was the FY2025 budget, and we’re now in late November without a shared view on runway, priorities, or how aggressive versus conservative we want to be next year. So it’s natural that evaluating an OTC proposal in isolation, without that wider context, creates uncertainty.
First of all credit where it’s due. Thank you to @smartcondrums and everyone involved for the foresight and for putting this SLURP forward. It’s clear a lot of thought has gone into anticipating future needs rather than reacting to them. And I can also see exactly where @Erazz and @Stackin troubles are coming from.. I’ve been there, and I genuinely appreciate the concerns they’re raising. There’s probably a lesson for all of us on the importance of having more open, earlier discussions around treasury planning before specific proposals land.
It’s also worth remembering that we’re all essentially on the same side. Most hold SDL/reSDL and are locked for years, and whatever decisions we make will impact our own positions directly. The disagreements here aren’t about the end goal, they’re about sequencing and timing.
From a data standpoint, the protocol is already generating real recurring revenue.
The treasury’s 9M reSDL currently earns about 30.14 stLINK and 24.58 stPOL per week. At today’s prices that’s around $375/week, roughly $19.5k/year.
The LINK SDL UniV3 DoL position from SLURP-51 has generated around 4.29 LINK and 127.8 SDL in fees so far. On a daily average basis that’s around $3.5 day, about $1.2k/year if similar conditions hold (hopefully 1k EOY!).
Source
All of this is happening with only one fully mature LST (stLINK) and one newly onboarded LST (stPOL) just beginning to grow. and importantly, all of it is happening without a real growth budget deployed this year.
Looking back at FY2025, we clearly had a big win in onboarding stPOL. But we didn’t have enough runway to meaningfully invest in stPOL adoption. The product shipped, but the growth engine never had the fuel to turn it into meaningful TVL. That’s a partial success, and it teaches us something important.
Growth doesn’t scale linearly.
If we invest x1, maybe we onboard 1 LST.
If we invest x2, we might onboard 2 or 3 LSTs and give them the attention, integrations and strategy required for real traction.
And multiple LSTs don’t merely add they compound:
more inflows > more stLINK and stPOL yield > more treasury revenue > deeper DoL > more integrations > more inflows again
This is the flywheel we’re trying to build together.
So the challenge here isn’t that the OTC idea is inherently wrong (I think it makes 100% sense). It’s that we’re evaluating it before we’ve aligned on what the FY2026 budget should actually look like. Some people naturally lean toward caution (protect runway first). Others lean toward opportunity (invest early so compounding can happen cough Chainlink strategy cough). Both positions come from wanting SDL to succeed in the long run.
This is why the OTC evaluation should ideally sit inside, or at least be informed by, the broader 2026 budget planning. Once we agree on runway needs, how ambitious we want to be with new LSTs, and how much capital should be available for the DAO, liquidity alignment, or strategic planning, it becomes far easier to evaluate this deal in context.
Right now, even though there are fixed operating expenses that will need to be covered regardless, we’re essentially discussing a capital-allocation decision before we’ve aligned on the broader strategic plan. That sequencing is what’s creating most of the tension.
For perspective, the 300,000 SDL request is small relative to the DAO’s balance sheet. The treasury holds roughly 26.2M SDL (about $10.17M at current prices), so this allocation represents only about 1.1% of total SDL reserves, roughly $116k notional. Even accounting for market volatility, it remains well below 2% of treasury value.
Fwiw, I personally think an OTC deal makes sense and is directionally needed.. the exact structure and parameters are absolutely open for discussion, but the underlying intent is sound.
If we keep the conversation collaborative, acknowledge the valid concerns on all sides, and naturally weave this OTC conversation into the broader planning cycle that’s coming up, we reduce friction, learn from this moment, and give ourselves the best chance that any move strengthens, rather than limits, the flywheels we’re building together.