How Votes Work
Livepeer governance uses a stake-weighted voting system built around Livepeer Improvement Proposals (LIPs). Every active participant in the network - Orchestrators, Delegators, and LPT holders - can influence protocol decisions through this mechanism. Key mechanics:- Voting weight equals total bonded stake (Orchestrator self-stake plus all delegated LPT)
- Passing threshold requires 33.33% of all staked LPT to support AND 50% of votes cast to approve
- Delegator override - Delegators can vote independently, overriding their Orchestrator’s position on a specific LIP
- Poll creation cost - 100 LPT to create an on-chain poll, preventing low-effort or spam proposals
Scope of Governance
Governance is not a side topic. It reaches directly into operator economics, network direction, and the conditions under which future workloads become viable. The Livepeer Foundation, launched in 2025, coordinates ecosystem development and stewards the long-term protocol vision. It does not replace stake-weighted governance over protocol parameters. Operators with large bonded stake remain consequential participants in major protocol decisions.Governance proposals and active LIPs are tracked on the Livepeer Forum
and the livepeer/LIPs GitHub repository. Following these is
a practical prerequisite for informed governance participation.
Stake as Governance Capital
For operators, stake is both economic capital and political capital inside the network. It determines not only reward exposure, but how much influence an operator carries when the protocol changes. This creates a direct link between operating well and carrying more influence. Orchestrators who deliver reliable service, maintain competitive pricing, and build trust with Delegators accumulate more bonded stake over time - and with it, more governance weight. The concentration of stake matters. Active Orchestrators represent the majority of staked LPT in the network. On any contested governance vote, the position taken by large Orchestrators is often decisive.Beyond Earnings: Sovereign Compute
The economic case for running a Livepeer Orchestrator is covered in . The non-financial case starts with a different question: who should control the infrastructure that serves video and AI workloads? The dominant alternative is centralised cloud compute. AWS, Azure, and GCP provide the GPU infrastructure that powers the majority of video transcoding and AI inference globally. This concentration creates:- Single points of control - a policy change at a major provider affects all its customers simultaneously
- Censorship vectors - centralised providers can and do restrict access to certain content or customers under legal or commercial pressure
- Vendor lock-in - platforms built on proprietary cloud infrastructure cannot easily migrate away
- Pricing power - without competitive alternatives, cloud providers set the terms
For independent media
For independent media
Video infrastructure controlled by centralised platforms is subject to those platforms’ content
policies. Independent creators in jurisdictions with restrictive internet governance, or producing
content that falls into contested categories, have limited recourse when a cloud provider
terminates service.A permissionless compute network with no single controller provides a meaningfully different
infrastructure substrate. Orchestrators are the physical embodiment of that alternative.
For AI researchers
For AI researchers
AI research increasingly requires GPU access at scale. Centralised providers gatekeep this through
pricing, account verification, acceptable use policies, and geographic restrictions. Researchers
in emerging markets or working on models that touch policy-sensitive domains face additional
barriers.Livepeer’s permissionless AI inference network lowers these barriers. Any application can access
GPU compute by paying the market rate in ETH - no account approval, no content policy review,
no geographic restriction.
For platforms avoiding lock-in
For platforms avoiding lock-in
Platforms built on proprietary cloud infrastructure are subject to that provider’s pricing and
availability. A provider raising GPU pricing by 30%, or deprecating a service, creates immediate
operational risk.Building on an open, permissionless network with multiple competing Orchestrators distributes
that risk. No single Orchestrator’s failure or pricing change can disrupt a well-configured Gateway.
For developers building on open compute
For developers building on open compute
Open compute infrastructure enables applications that would not exist on centralised platforms:
uncensorable media archives, AI applications with no usage monitoring, platforms operating across
jurisdictions where centralised services are blocked.The developer community building on Livepeer depends on Orchestrators to make this infrastructure
available. An Orchestrator is more than an earning node - it is part of the substrate that makes these
applications possible.
Practical Governance Participation
If the motivation case is clear, the practical question becomes what an operator actually does with that influence. Governance participation means more than showing up on voting day. The most consequential work happens before a proposal reaches an on-chain poll. Follow active proposals. The Livepeer Forum governance category is where proposals develop before reaching an on-chain vote. Early discussion shapes what ends up being voted on. Orchestrators with specific operational perspectives - pricing mechanics, hardware requirements for new workload types, impact on earnings - provide signal that proposal authors and the broader community need. Vote on LIPs. Voting can be done via the Livepeer Explorer. Orchestrators that hold large stake but consistently abstain reduce the effective quorum available for passing beneficial proposals and signal low engagement to their Delegators. Communicate governance positions to Delegators. Since Delegators default to their Orchestrator’s vote unless they vote independently, Orchestrators with large delegated stake have an obligation to communicate how they intend to vote on major proposals. Transparent governance communication is a quality signal that influences delegation decisions. Engage with SPE proposals. The Strategic Priority Enabler (SPE) framework allocates treasury resources to specific ecosystem initiatives. SPE proposals affect what infrastructure, tooling, and growth programmes get funded. Orchestrators who benefit from or are affected by specific SPE programmes have direct interest in these votes.Related Pages
Operating Rationale
The financial case for running a node - costs, revenue, and decision matrix.
Governance Guide
How to participate in governance - voting steps, proposal process, and Explorer guide.
Attracting Delegators
How to grow delegated stake and build the governance weight that comes with it.
LPT Token Overview
The role of LPT in governance, staking, and the broader Livepeer protocol.