SSV provides one of the most critical pieces of infrastructure in the entire Ethereum ecosystem.
Currently, $19+ billion worth of ETH utilizes SSV. That’s more than 4 million ETH, which is 10%+ of the entire amount of ETH staked across the entire Ethereum network.
For the entire global financial system to onboard into Ethereum, downside protection solutions like SSV are necessary.
Current Business Model:
In exchange for providing this critical piece of infrastructure, SSV Network charges a measly .75% on the Ethereum staked, which is payable in the SSV token, and that SSV token is then sent to the multi-sig to be burned. This number is pitiful compared to the amount of value SSV provides to its stakers.
Solution:
SSV needs to increase its revenue network fee to 10%, which would move annualized revenue to $30 million from the network fee alone. Additionally, SSV needs to streamline its payment system and make the network fee directly payable in ETH. This simplifies the payment process of the validators. Each payment in ETH should then immediately automatically go to buying SSV on a DEX, such as Uniswap, via a smart contract. The bought SSV should then be burnt.
Conclusion:
Downside protection in staking is an incredibly valuable innovation. SSV is the protector of Ethereum staking, we all need to appreciate the value this technology provides for the entire ecosystem.
Hey @MattisonAsher! Interessting take. I share your assessment about the criticality of SSV and the downside protection it offers.
For additional background on the network fee calculation and why it was increasingly set to 1%, I’d recommend the following post (see the Network fee Arguments for activating network fees and Evaluation section) :
I’m sure others will respond in more detail. I’ll have an eye on this post, and we’ll make sure to drive the discussion.
Hey, thanks for your comments! I agree with much of what you suggested, and I think things are moving along this general direction but just need more time to mature.
SSV is still in an early stage and is expanding its scope beyond simple staking, so keep in mind that our current fees and tokenomics are in a preliminary state. SSV 2.0 (in development and now launched on testnet) introduces based apps, which will have their own ecosystem and fee structure, adding to the revenue and value that the network generates. This is expected to develop into a larger market than staking itself.
Although we could (and probably eventually should) raise our fees for basic staking, our current state is one where we are purposely keeping our fees low to attract more validators. This has been a critical strategic focus, since having a large network of validators and operators creates a strong advantage over competitors as we enter this next chapter of being based apps infrastructure.
I do think it’s important to maintain our competitive cost long-term, so a 10% network fee might be high. But since the current industry standard is a 5-10% fee, and since our current fees on SSV (including operator fees) are like <2%, we certainly have a lot of room to increase our costs. Also note that the fees for based apps will likely be higher than for staking.
Regarding abstracting fees to be paid in ETH, I 100% agree. However, note that we are planning to make significant changes to our tokenomics once SSV 2.0 launches, since that infrastructure will give us much more flexibility to implement mechanisms that are difficult today. In my opinion, fee abstraction to ETH should be one such change, as well as including some inherent positive market force (I like your suggestion of using fees to buy and burn SSV).
SSV Labs has already been working on this for a while and is pushing to reach SSV 2.0 mainnet as quickly as possible. I believe early 2026 is the current estimate.
In regards to resources required, I think we already have everything needed. We just need SSV Labs to keep at it
Who at SSV Labs manages the roadmap for the technical developments that involve this sort of work and has SSV ever utilized 3rd party contractors for similar work
The DAO is ultimately in charge of approving the roadmap, and the current arrangement is one where SSV Labs can be thought of as a contractor for the DAO. But given SSV Labs’ core role since SSV’s beginnings, the DAO leans on them heavily to guide our technical priorities. And as Ben mentioned, there are a lot of people involved in providing this guidance.
Apologies for missing your question. I think it’s a team effort, not any one person dictating the roadmap. But if you have specific questions/comments or want to speak with someone, we can try to connect you with an appropriate person.
Alon is certainly one of the people influencing the direction of the roadmap. @AdamBlox is the other founder who focuses a lot on strategy. Also, @arielzimroni is the head of product.
As of now, most staking services charge 10–15% (Coinbase is an outlier at ~25%). That fee is for the service itself(including the LST). SSV, on the other hand, is staking infrastructure — most staking services use it as their staking “backend.” What this means is that whatever revenue a staking service earns from users, any fees paid to SSV reduce their net profit.
Currently, incentive mechanisms (IM) pay ~5× more than the network fee. In practice, for every 1 unit of network fee paid, the service earns 4 units of extra SSV as profit. This dynamic is one of our main growth drivers: the further apart those two numbers are, the stronger the pure economic incentive to join SSV. Over time, our plan is to create additional reward avenues for validators so that IM can be reduced, leaving DAO fees as pure buy pressure on the market.
Another avenue is SSV staking. DAO fees could be redirected to pay APR for anyone who stakes SSV. I believe [name] has a proposal on this coming soon.
There’s also a more immediate way to increase fees beyond the current ~1% of ETH staking: introducing “trusted clusters” that pay network fees off-chain. This would unlock two benefits:
Allow fees to be paid in non-SSV tokens (ETH, USDC, etc.).
Increase fees by 10–25%, since these clusters would not be required to post slashing collateral.
Summary
SSV today provides strong economic incentives, with IM yields far outweighing network fees, creating a clear profit motive for services to integrate. The roadmap focuses on gradually reducing IM while introducing new validator rewards, redirecting DAO fees into buy pressure and staking APR. Mechanisms like trusted clusters can raise fees in a sustainable way and open payments to multiple tokens
How long would it take to change the technical infrastructure to streamline SSV payments so that network fees are directly payable in ETH and that ETH then automatically goes directly to buying SSV via a smart contract on Uniswap and then having that bought SSV burnt?
What specific question are you trying to answer? How long will it take before the network will abstract fees to ETH and implement some sort of updated tokenomics?
If so, I think it’s both a question of when in the backlog this will actually be completed (it’s important, but there is much important work to do in the near-term) and how difficult will it be technically. I think the estimate of when this will be tackled is probably within a few months, as part of the larger SSV 2.0 rollout… ~early 2026. For the technical difficulty, I think compared to the many other ambitious pursuits of SSV Labs, I wouldn’t be worried about. But I think it’s difficult to estimate a precise amount of work required to implement it without doing a more thorough investigative pass.
If you’re thinking about this from the perspective of an investor, I know such a tokenomics update would be significant, but it’s just one piece of many updates that will improve the token’s value. Zooming out to what SSV 2.0 will bring as a whole, it’s more than just better tokenomics… it’s the great expansion of our market, customer base, and volume and a solidification of SSV as a core part of Ethereum’s infrastructure.
