This is an interesting discussion and I would like to share my thoughts on it.
The starting point of the discussion was about finding ways to mitigate the counterparty risk of a governance attack that could lead to an attacker taking control of the DAO’s funds.
As @AvsA mentioned in [Temp Check] Enable CANCEL role on the DAO, one possible measure to prevent this would be by increasing the number of active delegates. However, I am hesitant about considering liquid staking as the solution for this since it is a relatively new concept that comes with its own set of risks, such as smart contract risk and secondary market risk of LSTs.
A prudent approach would be to wait for now and consider liquid staking once the lite paper is released and there is some available data from a working implementation that would help properly assess these risks.