SLURP-57 | FY2026 stake.link DAO Budget

SLURPs
1

Abstract

This proposal builds on the established, structured annual discretionary budget for the stake.link DAO introduced in the beginning of 2025, allowing for efficient operational management, competitive hiring, and streamlined financial oversight. The budget will come with financial oversight and execution facilitated by Harris & Trotter (H&T) as the designated custodian. Due to subjective token prices the budgeting and value of the treasury as well as payout for some items cannot be determined with full accuracy. Therefore, this budget has to withstand certain uncertainties and might need intervention at a later stage.

In total we are looking at $722,000 at current price levels to be paid in SDL and $380,050 to be paid in Cash / Stables. However, both of these numbers could be lower significantly over the year depending on the implementation of PoL for incentives, seeking community grants covering audit and development cost as well as no bug bounties needed to be paid out ($110,000 alone). Should the treasury experience a shortage of Cash / Stables we would take the decision on how to proceed to governance.

The primary objectives of this and future budget proposals include:

  1. Allocating a structured discretionary budget in SDL & USDC, providing operational flexibility while maintaining DAO accountability.

  2. Defining core budget categories to align with DAO priorities, including staffing, development, marketing, security, and strategic growth initiatives.

  3. Securing and formalizing funding for strategic hires, ensuring compensation remains competitive and is managed transparently but discreetly.

1. Motivation & Rationale

The stake.link DAO has grown significantly, requiring a more structured approach to financial management to support scalability, operational efficiency, and strategic expansion.

Key pain points that this proposal addresses:

  • Inefficiencies & compensation concerns: Without a structured budget, every expense requires public DAO governance approval, which risks delays, unnecessary scrutiny, and reduced competitiveness when operating.
  • Financial predictability: A defined yearly budget ensures stable funding allocation, avoiding ad-hoc funding requests that slow down execution.
  • Confidentiality in staffing matters: The DAO needs the ability to allocate salaries and compensation without publicly disclosing individual pay.

By creating a pre-approved budget, the DAO empowers the Council to act swiftly within predefined financial limits, while maintaining transparency and accountability through H&T’s financial oversight.

2. Stake.link DAO Budget Framework

2.a. Operating Expenses (OpEx):

These are the recurring, fixed costs necessary to maintain daily operations, governance, legal compliance, and infrastructure. This category is predictable, covering the core functions of the organization.

2.a.1. Governance, Staff & Administrative Expenses - $128,600/year

  • Council Compensation: Fixed monthly payments to council members

    • $24,000/year in SDL ($1,000/month for each of the two Community Council Members) - 48,000 SDL

  • DAO Employee Compensation: Fixed monthly payments to DAO Employees

    • $48,000/year in SDL ($4,000/month for one DAO Employee) - 96,000 SDL (SLURP-49)

  • Legal & Compliance Fees: Retainers for legal counsel, compliance audits, regulatory advisory (SLURP-30)

    • $31,600/year director and compliance fees for Little Bay Directors Limited billed annually in advance

    • $25,000/year registered agent, registered office, Nominee Guarantee Member, Service and Director Fees for Little Bay Directors Limited and Walkers Limited

2.a.2. Accounting & Financial Operations - approx. $91,000/year and subject to currency exchange

  • Professional Accounting Services: Ongoing services provided by Harris & Trotter (SLURP-24)

    • Fixed Costs: ÂŁ60,000/year (core financial services)

    • Estimated Variable Costs: ÂŁ10,000–£30,000/year (depending on DAO growth and additional service demands)

2.a.3. Security Subscription Services - $52,450/year

stake.link works with immunefi.com as a bug bounty platform and Hypernative Labs for real-time monitoring of stake.link smart contracts. Both are important parts of stake.link security which incentivize security researchers to submit vulnerabilities to stake.link instead of black market, and for 24/7/365 continuous protocol monitoring. Both programs cover smart contracts and apps, and focus on preventing loss of user funds, denial of service, governance hijacks, data breaches, and data leaks.

2.a.4. Software Subscription Services / Fees - $5,000/year

  • Retainer for cost incurred by Slack, Google Suite, Gnosis Safe, Snapshot

2.b. Strategic Investments (CapEx):

These represent project-based initiatives or departments focused on growth, research, and protocol development. Unlike OpEx, these can vary based on the DAO’s priorities and strategic goals for the year.

2.b.1. Business Development & Marketing - $35,000/year

The Business Development unit works to expand the penetration of stake.link’s staked assets across the Decentralized Finance ecosystem through integrations business development, tactical initiatives that increase stake.link’s network effects and increase stake.link’s staked capital base, protocol expansion, tradfi/CEX integrations, and generally maintaining relationships with partners and community stakeholders on an ongoing basis.

  • Strategic Sponsorships $5,000: E.g., ongoing partnerships with @CCIPTracker

  • Travel and conference expenses $30,000

    • Staking Rewards Summit 2026 $10,000

    • SmartCon 2026 $20,000

2.b.2. Security Services - up to $140,000 depending on bug-bounty

  • Immunefi: Up to $110,000 depending on severity of found bug (low to critical)

  • Audit cost: $30,000 per LST voted positively by governance and not reimbursed by grants

2.b.3. DeFi Liquidity & Incentives Workstream - up to 1.3M SDL

  • Uniswap - $400K~ TVL, targeting up to 5% SDL APY: 50,000 SDL

  • Curve $9M~ TVL, targeting up to 5% SDL APY: 1M SDL

  • Potential Future DeFi integration: 250K SDL

2.b.4. Talent Acquisition & Contributor Development Workstream - Budget TBD

  • Recruitment Costs: For onboarding new contributors

2. Summary

Category Amount (USD/Year) Payment in Cash/Stables vs. SDL
2.a. Operational Expenses (OpEx) $277,05 SDL (subject to SDL price) and Cash/ Stables
1. Governance, Staff & Administrative Expenses $128,600 SDL (subject to SDL price)
2. Accounting & Financial Operations $91,000 Cash/Stables
3. Security Subscription Services $52,450 Cash/Stables
4. Software Subscription Services / Fees $5,000 Cash/Stables
2.b. Strategic Investments (CapEx) $825,000
1. DeFi Liquidity & Incentives Workstream $650,000 SDL (subject to targeted reward rate)
2. Security Services $140,000 Cash Stables (subject to bugs identified)
3. Business Development & Marketing $35,000 Cash/Stables

3. Conclusion & Next Steps

This proposal establishes a clear, structured approach to DAO financial management, ensuring:

  • Faster decision-making and hiring processes

  • Operational flexibility without governance bottlenecks

  • Competitive salaries and staffing confidentiality

  • Financial security and treasury oversight

By approving this budget, the stake.link DAO can scale efficiently while preserving governance integrity and operational transparency.

Next Steps:

  1. Community Discussion & Feedback (7-14 days)
  2. Formal Governance Vote
  3. Budget Execution & Treasury Allocation via H&T

We invite all parties to the DAO to review and provide feedback before submitting this proposal for a governance vote.

2 Likes
SLURP-54 | Request for OTC SDL Token Purchase with Flexible LP Commitment Options on Base
SLURP-58 | Monetization of DAO-Eligible BUILD Rewards for Treasury Funding
2

This Budget seems globaly akin last year’s budget.
The expenses are kept tight.
It seems we could budget some BD/marketing if a few key defi integrations goes live ?
Is it possible to know how many years of runby are left on Stake.link’s treasury?

3

GM Erazz,

You can have a look at the treasury under Governance Contracts here: Deployed Contracts | stake.link

I cannot make any statements on runway specifically as it is subject to the token price of SDL.

1 Like
4

Interesting that you’ve identified runway as dependent on price of SDL.

From a marketing standpoint, have we given any thought to further brand integration/amalgamation with Chainlink Labs in an effort to onboard people who cannot perfectly time the staking on the chainlinklabs website, and consider asking Chainlink Labs to at least offer the suggestion that there is this other platform that has a waitlist with automation that they could try. I wonder if the point of sales–as it were–is sort of on the actual “stake here” portion of the Chainlink Labs website. I’m not suggesting trespassing on any parties’ brands, but further focusing on onboarding people at point-of-sale.

And it doesn’t have to be a “click here for this third party”, but perhaps a calm co-marketing attempt that says “hey, we Chainlink Labs also have this ecosystem partner called stakedotlink, that can place your $LINK in a waiting list.” Are there any positive arguments for ChainlinkLabs to want to do this? How does Chainlink Labs benefit from stakedotlink?

Otherwise budget and SLURP are very well organized, well articulated, and flawlessly written, without any typographic errors–which I admire.

As for the governance and staff, in thinking of a restructure and in thinking of costs, the DAO needs two Community Council Votes; but does it need two Community Council Members? Perhaps we can save cost by having 1 Community Council Member with 2 votes. I was just reviewing a past post where someone suggested revisiting the architecture of the Council.

The question then becomes, in terms of the concurrent OTC SDL raise, where does this budget put this in terms of the target for funds that needs to be raised? We are basically trying to cushion the ~$722k here that would be disbursed in SDL?

5

its not interesting at all, every single thing we base decisions off of keeps in mind that selling our treasury reduces MC because our liq is so low…. we discuss this often

1 Like
6

I just want to say this budget is 100% separate from any active slurps and will be voted on as such

7

Long term goals > not having to sell SDL to support year over year operations ofc. Success

8

Thank you for this proposal @Asymmetric

Everything in the budget holds together strongly, and the direction is solid. One point still feels underpowered though. The current SDL liquidity incentives at about 1666 dollars per month do not match the opportunity cost of providing LP. I am ready to double my SDL liquidity, but the math at the moment works against that move.

50k SDL x .40$ = 20k / 12 = 1666$/m

Could we budget for double the amount (100k SDL) and keep the additional 50k as buffer for trading competitions? That activity lifts SDL volume, which lifts APY, which then supports the case for a reduction in incentives over time.

Much love to the SDL sistas.

9

There are additional 250,000 SDL that can be used, we previously had 10%+ APY and even 50%, and it did not attract volume - so I am not sure what the rationale would be. Either way this budget enable that option if we decide that way