Looking at $LSTR, the Latest LeoFinance Token
I’ve recently joined Hive, and as someone who loves to explore shiny new things, I’ve been poking around the ecosystem to learn what it has to offer. One big part of Hive is InLeo (LeoFinance), a hub for financial content and tokenized interactions. While exploring it, I stumbled upon their newly launched token, $LSTR. Intrigued, I bought ~$4 worth of $LSTR; enough to remind myself to circle back and look closer at the token.
What is $LSTR for?
When I asked, I got a concise answer from @leostrategy: "Buy and HODL it for leveraged exposure to $LEO."
For those unfamiliar with the jargon, this means $LSTR is supposed to amplify the price movements of another token, in this case, $LEO. In theory, if $LEO’s price rises, $LSTR’s price should rise even more. But leverage and HODLing don’t typically mix. Leverage is a high-risk, short-term strategy meant to maximize gains (or losses), while HODLing is about weathering long-term volatility. Combining these feels like mixing oil and water.
Curious if there was more to it, I checked out the closest thing I could find to a white paper.
What the Blog Post Says
The post describes $LSTR as a fund that pools resources to buy and stake $LEO. Here’s the general idea:
Funds raised by selling $LSTR tokens are used to purchase $LEO, which is staked as LEO POWER.
Staking rewards are reinvested to buy more $LEO, compounding the fund’s value over time.
The post implies that as $LEO’s price rises, so will $LSTR’s price, because the fund’s holdings become more valuable. Speculative demand for $LSTR could amplify this effect.
Points of Concern
The blog post provides an overview, but there are some gaps and ambiguities that make it hard to fully grasp how $LSTR works in practice or how it delivers value to its holders. Here are the key areas I’m struggling to reconcile:
Is "Leverage" the Right Term?
In traditional finance, leverage involves borrowing or using derivatives to amplify returns. Here, there’s no indication of borrowing or other mechanisms typically associated with leverage. Instead, the fund’s strategy seems to rely on pooling resources and compounding staking rewards. If "leveraged exposure" is just a metaphor for increased exposure through pooling, it feels potentially misleading.
How Does LSTR’s Value Track LEO’s Price?
The post suggests that $LSTR’s price will rise as $LEO’s price rises, but there’s no explicit mechanism tying the two together. Without proportional backing (e.g., 1 $LSTR = a specific share of the fund’s $LEO holdings) or redemption rights, $LSTR’s price seems to depend entirely on speculative demand. This creates a disconnect between the fund’s performance and token holder value.
Who Benefits from Staking Rewards?
The fund reinvests all staking rewards into purchasing more $LEO, which grows the fund but doesn’t provide direct payouts to $LSTR holders. Unless the reinvestment creates proportional growth in $LSTR’s value (which isn’t clearly explained), holders are left waiting for speculative price increases without receiving tangible benefits.
What Is $LSTR’s Purpose?
As it stands, $LSTR seems more like a way to pool funds to buy and stake $LEO, supporting its price through consistent demand. This benefits the $LEO ecosystem as a whole, but it’s less clear what unique value $LSTR provides to individual token holders. If the goal is to support $LEO, that’s fine—but it’s not quite the same as being an investment vehicle.
Is $LSTR a LEO Buyback Tool?
Given how the mechanics are described, it seems that $LSTR functions as a buyback program for $LEO:
- Funds raised from $LSTR sales are used to acquire $LEO, creating upward pressure on its price.
- The fund locks up $LEO as LEO POWER, further reducing circulating supply and potentially boosting $LEO’s price over time.
If that’s the case, $LSTR’s value proposition might not be about delivering direct returns to holders but rather about supporting the $LEO ecosystem as a whole. That’s not inherently bad, but it’s different than what expectations are being set by LeoFinance's pitch.
Should You Buy $LSTR?
If you’re a $LEO supporter and see value in boosting its price and ecosystem, $LSTR might be a way to contribute. However, for those looking for personal returns, it’s worth considering:
- Holding $LSTR doesn’t currently offer direct payouts or intrinsic value beyond speculative price appreciation.
- If $LEO’s growth is your goal, buying and staking $LEO yourself might provide clearer and more direct benefits.
Final Thoughts
I’ll be honest: I haven’t sold my $LSTR, and I don’t intend to pass the bag to someone else. At the same time, I’m not certain I’ve fully understood $LSTR’s mechanics—and that highlights a bigger issue. The lack of clear communication and detailed documentation doesn’t just undermine $LSTR, but also casts doubt on the credibility of LeoFinance and Hive as serious platforms. For someone like me, who’s exploring Hive as a potential home for my Web presence, this raises concerns.
A platform driven by short-term profit motives, without regard for transparency or the long-term stability of its community, risks alienating those who might otherwise invest deeply in its growth—not just financially, but culturally and technologically. It reflects a strong bias toward capitalistic growth at any cost, which can inadvertently push away individuals who bring more than a desire to get rich quick.
If $LSTR is primarily about supporting $LEO’s ecosystem, that’s fine—but let’s communicate it clearly. Setting accurate expectations helps build trust and ensures that Hive’s projects attract contributors who are aligned with its long-term goals.
Does anyone else share similar concerns about how Hive's projects often prioritize short-term profits over building a sustainable, inclusive ecosystem? How can we ensure the community takes something as important as investing in the future seriously, both for Hive's long-term stability and to attract contributors who value more than quick gains?
Congratulations @michael561! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 300 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP
Check out our last posts:
Hey! Interesting read, well done!
On the concern you stated, @leostrategy explained that after the initial financing round they are setting up leverage. The amount they can borrow will depend on the collateral they have (in form of staked leo). They explained that they are talks with potential borrowers for sub 8% loans.
So if it all goes as planned, the token should indeed become leveraged in the next phase. The question ofcourse is - how big would the leverage be 0,5x / 1x / 3x / 10x?
Eagerly following it!
Thank you for the update on the planned use of leverage for $LSTR. (A disclosure of your >$8000 holdings in LEO would have been appreciated for transparency.)
The introduction of leverage certainly adds an interesting dimension to the token’s future mechanics, but it raises more questions than it answers. Frankly, jumping ahead to “what’s the leverage ratio?” feels premature when there are far more foundational aspects of the project that remain unclear.
The fund has stated that all proceeds will be reinvested in $LEO and promised never to unstake their holdings. This raises several critical questions:
The only mechanism by which such "collateral" could be "liquidated" without violating that promise, that I'm aware of, is through delegation. If that’s the case, does this mean the loan provider is someone within the Hive ecosystem? If so, what are the implications for decentralization and influence within Hive? Are there safeguards to prevent over-leveraging, such as debt-to-asset ratio limits? And what happens to the fund’s operations if $LEO liquidity becomes constrained?
Additionally, if $LSTR is called or needs to service its debt, how can this be accomplished without liquidating $LEO? None of this addresses the more fundamental issue of the lack of a mechanical connection between $LSTR and $LEO. This disconnect remains a central concern for me.
While the mention of leveraging clarifies the fund’s planned direction, it further highlights the contradiction in the advice to simply HODL. Leverage requires active management and careful oversight—concepts that stand at odds with the idea of a passive hold strategy.
Based on the available information, it seems plausible that the loan provider could come from within Hive, potentially benefiting from a large delegation of $LEO. If so, this could serve as a mechanism for consolidating influence—for instance, amplifying someone like Khal’s existing position within Hive to bolster a bullish attitude toward LeoFinance and the $LEO token.
Ultimately, transparency around these mechanics is essential. Ensuring that the fund—and by extension, Hive’s ecosystem—rests on a sustainable and equitable foundation requires clarity, not conflicting promises. Right now, instead of transparency, we’re seeing a series of claims that seem to contradict one another.
Thanks for your reply!
Great questions! Glad you are also doing your reseach properly amd sharing this to others do that aswell!
I am also asking questions to them on inleo (for example with regards to the max supply).Although I am very curious I want to fully understand it before I invest.
My position in $leo is not relevant here right? Plus I frequently blog about this position (including today).
My position in $lstr would be relevant - full disclosure there, I have not yet invested in them. Also still in the process of doing my research!
Thanks for your thoughtful reply and for sharing your perspective! I appreciate your gratitude for my post and questions—it’s great to see others also digging into these topics and sharing their research. Open discussions like this are how we all learn and grow together.
On the topic of disclosures, I understand your point, but I’d gently suggest that bringing relevant information into the conversation can be more productive than requiring others to do their own research to understand the context of who they’re talking to.
In the case of $LSTR, which appears to function as a buyback program for $LEO, a significant position in $LEO is highly relevant to the discussion, as it could influence perspectives or stakes in the outcomes.
I think it’s awesome that you’re actively questioning and researching before investing—it’s a solid approach. Hopefully, with more transparency and discussion, we can all get a clearer picture of how $LSTR is meant to work and what risks and opportunities it presents! Looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts as you continue your research.
I would be cautious about this one!
Funny to say when you haven't looked into it :)
How do you know I haven´t looked into it?
On the H-E, the spread on LSTR is suspiciously high. So there is a high risk for LSTR buyers that they can´t sell their tokens without a huge loss. This is not a good sign.
Also it is quite bold to repeatedly compare LSTR with MSTR. Mike Saylor doesn´t asks investors to buy a dubious coin. All he did in the lasst years was buying BTC, and luckily it turned out his decision was a good one so far. But he did it on his own risk. If BTC would have tumbled, so would his company. If LEO tumbles, the LSTR buyers will suffer, this is quite a difference.
This is easy to debunk by looking at the order book. We are still in initial sale, so this is 100% expected and ordinary.
He asks them to buy MSTR stock.
Sure, same as MSTR. However, like MSTR, we will have 0 liquidation risk bonds to IRL investors who want steady yield and exposure to crypto.
Not really. Michael Saylor anyway - if people are buying MSTR or not - stacks BTC as a company strategy, over the years and he had started even before the stock started to pump. It is not that they have to buy first and he then buys BTC.
These questions and many of the others are answered throughout our Blogs & Threads. I would also highly recommend reading up on Microstrategy (MSTR) if you're curious about the longer term roadmap for LSTR.
Our initial raise is intended to buy as much $LEO as possible off the market and stake it in the @leostrategy account.
From there, we have IRL investors who are willing to use that staked LEO as collateral to give us low interest, no liquidation loans to buy more LEO. These investors have high conviction in the future success of LEO, so they are willing to earn a nice interest rate and have no concerns about their ability to be paid back on the loans in the future as LEO continues to outperform the rest of the crypto market.
These are similar to long-dated bonds - again, how we pull from the Microstrategy playbook.
Simply put, we will buy LEO. Then we will use that as collateral to buy more LEO. Our earnings from curation, posting, creator subs, referrals, etc. will all be used to buy and stake more LEO.
The LEO we compound in the @leostrategy account is what backs the LSTR token.
You cannot redeem MSTR stock for BTC. However, the price of MSTR is backed by BTC. The very same mechanism applies to LSTR.
I appreciate this reply & wrote a followup
🦁