Lido’s Curated Module Committee is authorized to adjust the protocol’s deposit reserve, but the 1,500 ETH target was unchanged as of September 27 and no adjustment proposal had been initiated. The reserve determines how much ETH in Lido’s buffer is prioritized for validator deposits. When deposits and stETH withdrawal requests compete for limited funds, a larger reserve can leave less ETH for withdrawals and extend the time until requests are finalized.
The committee’s preliminary plan is to temporarily remove the reserve and reconsider it after a new staking module launches. For stETH holders, actual wait times will still depend on the buffer balance, the number of pending withdrawal requests and whether validators have deposit keys ready for use.
How Lido allocates ETH in its buffer
Lido’s contract documentation allocates buffered ETH in three stages: first to the deposit reserve, then to the reserve for stETH withdrawal requests that have not yet been finalized, and finally to any unreserved ETH, which can also be used for validator deposits. The deposit reserve is intended to keep some ETH available for staking even when withdrawals draw on the buffer.
The 1,500 ETH figure is a target for the protected deposit reserve, not a fixed balance guaranteed to be maintained at all times. If the buffer holds less than the target, the actual reserve can be lower. Deposits consume the reserve, which is gradually replenished to the target after an accounting oracle report. Reducing the target can take effect immediately; an increase gives newly available ETH deposit priority only after the next report.
When the buffer can cover both deposits and withdrawals, the target has little effect on pending withdrawals. If funds are constrained, setting the target to zero allows ETH otherwise assigned to the deposit reserve to be allocated to withdrawal requests. Finalization still depends on available ETH and queue conditions, while unreserved buffer funds remain available for validator deposits.
Committee proposes removing the reserve ahead of a new module
In a September 2 explanation, the committee said the 1,500 ETH target was originally set to provide startup funding for Curated Module v2 during the transition from the older curated module. The keys needed for that migration have now been configured, the committee said, while the existing Community Staking Module has a limited number of validator keys available for deposits before the planned 0x02 release. It therefore considers the protected reserve to be directing staking funds mainly to the older curated module and recommends reducing the target to zero until 0x02 CSM launches.
Any decision to restore the reserve will depend on the new module’s launch and node operators’ needs. Lido describes 0x02 CSM as a DAO-approved module that allows permissionless participation; it has yet to be released on mainnet. The committee said that if operators need to start new validators after launch, it may restore the target to between 1,500 and 2,000 ETH, keeping some ETH available for deposits during periods of withdrawal pressure. The target has not been set, and raising the reserve alone would not create new validator deposit keys.
The committee cited October as the expected launch timing, while Lido’s documentation gives a broader fourth-quarter target. Restoring deposit priority will therefore depend both on when 0x02 CSM launches and on whether operators can accept new deposits. If new keys become available while the stETH withdrawal queue remains long, the two uses could compete more directly for buffer funds.
Stress tests show longer waits with larger reserves
The analysis used to set the initial reserve drew on 360 days of historical staking inflows and withdrawal requests. It ran 500 simulations, resampling 100 days for each run. The high-pressure scenario assumed an Ethereum validator exit queue of about 30 days, plus roughly five days for skim and oracle processing. The model measures the ETH-weighted average time from an stETH withdrawal request to final confirmation by Lido across different scenarios; it is not a forecast of any individual user’s wait.
| Deposit reserve target | Modelled normal scenario | Modelled high-pressure scenario |
|---|---|---|
| 0 ETH | 2.3 days | 6.3 days |
| 1,500 ETH | 2.6 days | 7.9 days |
| 2,000 ETH | 2.7 days | 8.5 days |
| 10,000 ETH scenario* | 3.6 days | 15.7 days |
*10,000 ETH exceeds the committee factory’s 9,600 ETH limit; the original analysis did not provide a result for 9,600 ETH.
In the model, increasing the reserve from zero to 1,500 ETH raises the average time to final confirmation from 2.3 to 2.6 days in the normal scenario, and from 6.3 to 7.9 days in the high-pressure scenario. At a 2,000 ETH target, the modelled average in the high-pressure scenario is 8.5 days. These estimates illustrate the time cost of preserving deposit capacity when deposits and withdrawals draw on the same buffer. Actual queue conditions and individual wait times depend on circumstances at the time.
Lido withdrawals differ from market sales and validator exits
stETH holders can also sell their tokens for ETH on the secondary market, where execution depends on available liquidity and prevailing prices. Requests made through Lido’s withdrawal queue follow the protocol’s own finalization process. Validator exits from Ethereum are a separate step that can affect when funds enter Lido’s processing flow. These processes are not interchangeable: the modelled withdrawal confirmation time is neither the time needed to sell on the secondary market nor a direct measure of how long a validator exit takes.
The approved governance proposal authorizes the committee’s 5-of-9 multisig to submit an Easy Track motion to adjust the reserve target, within a limit of 9,600 ETH. The DAO can still object to a motion, set the target directly, revoke the committee’s authority or remove the relevant factory. The limit caps the value the committee can set through this mechanism, while individual motions can make adjustments within the permitted range.
On-chain records still showed a 1,500 ETH target as of September 27. The reserve factory’s motion records also showed no new motion since the authorization took effect on September 25. Whether the committee acts while deposit capacity remains limited, or waits for operators to signal demand for 0x02 CSM before restoring the reserve, will determine when the authority changes the allocation of funds. For withdrawal users, the key factor remains whether buffer ETH must serve both new deposits and pending requests.