Stakestone
Stakestone OPAP lets STONE holders approve strategy additions and ETH allocation changes
Stakestone OPAP lets STONE holders vote on adding strategies to STONE’s backing and changing the ETH allocation among those strategies. Voting weight depends on the amount of STONE a holder locks. A proposal needs greater support than opposition at the end of its public notice period before it can proceed to implementation.
The decision concerns the assets producing STONE’s underlying yield. A new route changes the portfolio’s composition; a revised allocation changes its exposure. Proposal approval, strategy deployment and the later recognition of yield each describe a different part of that process.
Strategy additions and ETH allocation weights
OPAP, short for Optimizing Portfolio and Allocation Proposal, governs the strategy pool’s permitted routes and their ETH allocation weights. Its portfolio and allocation decisions address different changes, even when one proposal combines them.
Adding a yield route
A portfolio proposal asks STONE holders to approve adding a strategy to STONE’s underlying asset mix. The strategy pool uses an OPAP-governed whitelist, so implementing an approved addition changes the pool’s permitted composition. The addition changes where part of the portfolio can generate yield. Two routes using the same underlying asset can involve different contracts, liquidity conditions or restaking arrangements.
Rebalancing existing routes
An allocation proposal seeks approval to change the proportion of underlying ETH assigned to strategies. The approved weights guide deployment and rebalancing within the pool. Raising a route’s allocation increases the portfolio’s exposure to its operation and risks; reducing its weight reduces that exposure. Neither adjustment makes the allocation percentage a promised yield.
A proposal can combine a new route with a revised distribution of ETH. Both changes matter when assessing the backing STONE holders will collectively hold.
Who can vote on an OPAP proposal?
STONE holders can vote for or against an OPAP proposal, with voting weight determined by the STONE they lock. The ballot therefore measures token-weighted support. Counting participating wallets alone cannot reproduce that result, because different wallets can commit different amounts of STONE.
The voting asset also identifies the decision’s scope. STONE represents exposure to the ETH yield portfolio, and its holders vote on that portfolio’s proposed adjustments. STO and veSTO belong to a separate governance system with different decisions and participation conditions.
Approval, timelocks and the applied portfolio
An OPAP adjustment moves through a public proposal, onchain voting and contract execution. These parts establish the proposed change, its approval and its implementation. A successful ballot does not, by itself, show how the strategy pool has deployed ETH.
The closing vote
The public notice deadline determines when affirmative and opposing votes establish the outcome. The passage condition requires more support than opposition. An interim lead can change before voting closes, so a tally during the notice period cannot establish the final decision.
The contract delay
The STONE OPAP design specifies a minimum smart-contract timelock of 24 hours. Individual proposals can use longer delays. The voting deadline and applicable contract timing both matter; the minimum does not establish a universal implementation date.
The applied allocation
Contract execution carries the accepted change into the strategy pool’s routes or allocation weights. An approval result concerns authorization, while strategy-pool holdings and deployment records concern the backing in operation. Yield then comes from the strategies themselves. Approving an allocation cannot establish the eventual return those strategies will produce.
The risks behind a strategy vote
OPAP evaluates proposed assets with safety ahead of APY. The assessment covers liquidity, counterparties and technical dependencies.
Liquidity and market risk
Market risk includes liquidity and the price effects of moving assets. An attractive yield figure does not establish available exit liquidity.
Governance and counterparties
Counterparty assessment considers governance, legal issues and centralization. Those conditions affect who controls a strategy and its operation.
Contracts and oracles
Technology assessment covers smart contracts and oracle reliability. Third-party audits and institutional-holder reviews inform asset evaluation; they do not eliminate the risks of an approved strategy.
How does OPAP fit the 2.0 ETH yield model?
The 2.0 ETH yield model retains OPAP allocation logic and STONE-holder approval of base-strategy changes. In the staking-vault model, deposited ETH becomes stETH in a strategy vault, with possible restaking. The 2.0 model explicitly separates issuance from deployment: the vault can buffer ETH until aggregated deposits meet a deployment threshold. Strategy pools subsequently report yield for settlement and exchange-rate updates. A mint, an allocation decision and recognized yield therefore describe separate operations.
Reading an allocation outcome
An allocation proposal can meet its voting condition before the strategy pool reflects its proposed weights. The closing tally determines approval; the implemented allocation establishes which distribution the pool actually uses.
- Identify whether the proposal adds a route, changes an ETH weight or combines both adjustments.
- Compare weighted support and opposition at the public notice deadline.
- Treat a tied vote as failing the requirement for support to exceed opposition.
- Account for the proposal’s applicable timelock when assessing implementation.
- Match the executed change with the strategy pool’s actual routes and ETH distribution.
For a proposal changing existing weights, greater support than opposition satisfies the voting condition. Once contract execution applies the change under the applicable timing rules, compare the pool’s ETH distribution with the approved weights. If the closing vote favors the proposal while the pool still uses its previous weights, approval alone does not establish completed rebalancing.
STONE allocation votes and veSTO incentive votes
STONE portfolio voting and veSTO governance act on different objects within the same ecosystem. OPAP addresses STONE’s backing routes and underlying ETH allocations. The STO model converts STO into veSTO, then uses locked veSTO to activate governance powers. Those powers include allocating emissions, influencing platform fees and deciding the portion of bribes burned.
A liquidity-incentive vote concerns the rewards directed toward eligible pools or vaults. It can affect where liquidity providers receive incentives without making it an OPAP decision about STONE’s backing. Likewise, a portfolio allocation can change ETH exposure without determining veSTO voters’ bribe rewards.
Stakestone OPAP - your questions answered
Does holding STONE allow me to submit an OPAP proposal?
Holding STONE does not automatically grant OPAP proposal-submission permission. The STONE OPAP design restricts proposal creation to an authorized proposer address. STONE holders vote on submitted adjustments; voter eligibility and proposal-creation authority remain separate powers.
Do I need to restake STONE after an OPAP vote?
An OPAP strategy change manages assets underlying STONE rather than requiring holders to restake STONE itself. The staking-vault model can place stETH into restaking strategies as part of the backing. Holding STONE gives exposure to that portfolio; any separate use of STONE in another protocol follows that protocol’s own conditions.
How do ETH allocation percentages differ from OPAP voting weights?
ETH allocation percentages measure portfolio distribution, while OPAP voting weights measure STONE committed to the decision. An allocation describes how much underlying ETH a strategy receives. Voting influence depends on locked STONE. A strategy’s ETH allocation percentage does not specify its share of voting power or its yield rate.
Will an approved allocation move STONE’s DEX price by the same percentage?
An OPAP allocation decision does not set a decentralized exchange execution price. It changes how underlying ETH is deployed, whereas a DEX quote reflects pool composition, liquidity and trade size. A percentage assigned to a strategy describes portfolio exposure; it does not forecast an equivalent change in STONE’s market price.
Is the 30-day veSTO conversion period also an OPAP lock period?
The 30-day vesting period applies to converting veSTO back into STO. During that conversion, the deposited veSTO cannot vote, receive yield boosts or enter another lock. OPAP voting uses STONE, so the veSTO conversion schedule does not establish the release conditions for a STONE voting lock.
updated