Governance Processes
On‑chain voting rules
The governance contract enforces explicit voting thresholds to protect against low‑participation attacks:
-
Quorum – At least 33 % of all staked LPT must participate in the vote for it to be valid. This requirement ensures that a small cabal cannot push through radical changes without broad community involvement.
-
Approval threshold – More than 50 % of participating votes must favour the proposal. Simple majority approval balances inclusivity with decisiveness: proposals that split the community evenly cannot pass.
-
Voting power – Voting power is proportional to bonded LPT. Delegators exercise governance indirectly by delegating to orchestrators whose values align with their own; orchestrators must publicly declare their positions and can cast votes accordingly.
Voting occurs via an on‑chain smart contract. When a LIP is ready, its hash and parameters are queued, and tokenholders can vote using signature‑based messages. After the voting period ends, if quorum and approval thresholds are met, the proposal is scheduled for execution. Otherwise it fails, but proposers may revise and resubmit. Because on‑chain votes consume gas, off‑chain signalling (e.g., Snapshot polls) is often used to measure sentiment before incurring costs.
Considerations and potential improvements
The choice of a 33 % quorum and 50 % approval is somewhat arbitrary but reflects a trade‑off between agility and resistance to capture. A lower quorum would make it easier to pass proposals during periods of low participation, but it increases the risk that a small group could enact controversial changes. A higher quorum protects against takeover but may gridlock the protocol if voter apathy sets in. To mitigate these risks, some decentralised networks have explored dynamic quorum (where the quorum adjusts based on historical turnout), conviction voting (where votes accumulate over time) or quadratic voting (to amplify minority voices). Livepeer’s governance has not yet adopted these mechanisms, but community discussions remain ongoing.
In addition, because voting power is directly tied to stake, large orchestrators can exert significant influence. Delegators mitigate this by re‑delegating to operators whose governance views align with theirs. Tools such as delegation metadata (off‑chain declarations of positions) and governance dashboards help tokenholders make informed choices. Ultimately, the combination of high quorum, transparent discussion and reputational risk has fostered a culture where major changes are thoroughly debated before being enacted.
Livepeer Foundation and treasury stewardship
The Livepeer Foundation, incorporated as a neutral nonprofit in 2025, stewards the protocol’s long‑term health. It coordinates core development, research and ecosystem growth, but its authority derives from tokenholders via governance. Key responsibilities include:
-
Protocol maintenance – Maintaining and upgrading smart contracts, reference implementations (go-livepeer), and SDKs. The Foundation ensures backward compatibility and orchestrates network migrations when proposals pass.
-
Research and standards – Funding research into verifiable transcoding, zero‑knowledge proofs, new codecs and incentive mechanisms. The Foundation also shepherds open standards to ensure interoperability among node implementations.
-
Grant programmes – Managing the community treasury (when authorised by governance) to fund builders, tooling, documentation and educational initiatives. Grant programmes are transparent, with proposals, milestones and budgets published for public review.
-
Ecosystem advocacy – Representing Livepeer in regulatory discussions, engaging with other blockchain communities and onboarding partners. Because Livepeer operates across jurisdictions, having a legal entity facilitates contractual agreements.
Despite its coordinating role, the Foundation is not a central authority. Treasury disbursements, major protocol changes and long‑term roadmaps require approval via LIPs. Tokenholders can replace Foundation stewards or modify its mandate through governance, ensuring accountability.
Why have a foundation?
Decentralised networks often struggle with the “tragedy of the commons”: no single actor has the incentive to invest in public goods such as documentation, developer tools or outreach. A nonprofit foundation can fill this gap while remaining accountable to tokenholders. By providing a legal entity, the Foundation can hire full‑time contributors, enter into contracts and engage with regulators. Yet, because its funding and leadership are subject to governance oversight, it cannot act unilaterally. This balance mirrors models used by other protocols (e.g., the Ethereum Foundation, Solana Foundation) and allows Livepeer to coordinate long‑term initiatives without sacrificing decentralisation.
Moving forward, some in the community advocate for progressive decentralisation of the Foundation itself—for example, transitioning treasury control to a DAO, distributing decision‑making to rotating committees or using quadratic voting for grant allocations. Others argue that a lean, stable foundation provides much‑needed continuity. As with inflation and rewards, the governance process will determine the optimal balance.Last modified on February 18, 2026
