# Anthony Leuts - Delegate Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Delegate Platform\ **Created:** [August 9, 2024, 2:45pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019 "2024-08-09T14:45:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2025, 9:24am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/21 "2025-11-03T09:24:19Z")
## [Lido Ecosystem Grants Organization (LEGO) — Framework Update 1 October 2025](https://research.lido.fi/t/lido-ecosystem-grants-organization-lego-framework-update-1-october-2025/10836) ### Vote: Yes ### Rationale: Glad to see budget decreased in half. Dont’ agree with removing LDO as a form of payment, i’d prefer doubling down on it, or at least doing research on how impactful paying in native token is in the industry. What are the rates of hodl and delegate, etc. Even though I don’t agree about the LDO change i’m not going to block the proposal moving forward as imo it’s more important to decrease costs and simplify. ## [Transfer TRP to Lido Labs Foundation and Amend TRP Terms](https://research.lido.fi/t/transfer-trp-to-lido-labs-foundation-and-amend-trp-terms/10647) ### Vote: Yes ### Rationale: Happy to see this proposal move forward and an amicable agreement found between the dissenting contributors of the Lido DAO and Lido Labs who put forward the proposal. More importantly I’m happy to see Labs take ownership of the program. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2025, 7:01pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/22 "2025-11-27T19:01:05Z")
## [Curated Module Fee Changes](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x3a5d10fcd3fad6d5ccf05f5bd49244046600ad9cbed9a5e07845200b3ae97e09) ### Vote: Yes ### Rationale: As the staked ETH market solidifies between the top centralized and decentralized providers, the competition between all of these entities continues to grow and margins continue to tighten. It’s pretty clear that Lido needs to continue to adjust to this changing market. Changing to a curated module fee structure allows for Lido DAO to increase the share of Curated Module rewards to ~ 6% a 20%+ increase from it’s current rate. The program also should incentivize Node operators to increase their general performance in the Lido network including in governance. As mentioned this is temporary anyways until a more automated system can be created with CMv2. I see no reason not to move this forward to an onchain vote. ## [TMC-6: Convert DAO Treasury stablecoins into sUSDS and update config on Easy Track and Aragon Finance accordingly](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x4dd947f5e73377b074fd393148b377558179f22ea923d584dd3c718f3bab0687) ### Vote: Yes ### Rationale: There should be no idle capital in the DAO in my opinion beyond what is required for short-term operations. sUSDS is a conservative and battle tested way for stablecoins to accrue yield instead of wasting away to inflation. I see no problem with adding sUSDS to the Lido DAO strategy. I also don’t see a huge problem with the Foundation to manage these assets on behalf of the DAO to decrease the requirement for voting. If I understand this correctly the Foundation would be bound by law to administer these funds under the “borg” setup and this money could be demanded back at any point by the DAO. @steakhouse could you confirm this more clearly? If there is any change then I believe my onchain vote could move to a no, for now signalling yes onchain. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 11:02am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/23 "2025-12-17T11:02:40Z")
### Offchain Snapshot Votes **1. [GOOSE 2025 cycle: Lido DAO goals for 2026](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x9504d26771291e011ff54c2e0d7665e79621aa0225c0d573697f1c4061401938)** Forum post [here](https://research.lido.fi/t/lido-labs-goose-3-lido-s-next-chapter/10927) #### Vote: Adopt GOOSE-3 proposal ### Rationale: [[Lido Labs] GOOSE-3: Lido’s Next Chapter - #12 by Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/t/lido-labs-goose-3-lido-s-next-chapter/10927/12) ### 2. [Ecosystem Grant gRequest (EGG): Executing GOOSE-3](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0xf263b730f1c64d637ec27227121d7c5bd2189bf456514bad8225e960cf34d7b0) Forum post [here](https://research.lido.fi/t/2026-ecosystem-grant-grequest-egg-executing-goose-3/10951) #### Vote: Approve 2026 EGG #### Rationale: Resources are needed to fufill the new goals for 2026! I’m glad to see some operational costs decreasing, I believe more work needs to be done in this case and a $10mil short-fall probably isn’t needed to meet Lido’s goals. It would also be preferable in the future to (after discussing with some other delegates) use the term “opportunistic” instead of “discretionary”. Discretionary funds are typically used for line-items such as “Growth” but clearly growth is under base-line in this proposal. Growth spending should be and is “discretionary” and should be viewed as such to ensure the status-quo is saving money not spending money. Setting the base-line with growth in it creates the expectation that there is a base-line amount of money for growth which there shouldn’t be. Base-line = operational. I won’t vote no over wording, but setting this precedent might be good in the future. Spend wisely and reach your goals! ### 3. [Lido Alliance BORG – Amendment of Bylaws to Enable GOOSE-3 Execution](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x5e087c8d53509dd9b55441f9ee6180da21ee5cf8fe68fab9d852b75b35a44a18) Forum post [here](https://research.lido.fi/t/lido-alliance-borg-amendment-of-bylaws-to-enable-goose-3-execution/10959) #### Vote: For ### Rationale: Seems like an easy, low-risk methodology to broaden the scope of what the BORG can use funds for and accomplish on behalf of the Lido DAO without adding more operational and legal overhead. ## 4.[Adopt The SEAL Safe Harbor Agreement](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x0188ab77d59b11ce589d88c350093faffdb07b3a9c9ba4d8af12755d4b2178c0) Forum post [here](https://research.lido.fi/t/proposal-adopt-the-seal-safe-harbor-agreement/10940) ### Vote: Approve ### Rationale: Sensible, low-risk methodology to improve Lido’s onchain security. SEAL has a great reputation and after witnessing OG protocols such as Yearn and Balancer fail, we can’t be too careful. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2025, 1:49pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/24 "2025-12-18T13:49:45Z")
# Onchain votes: ### [#194](https://vote.lido.fi/vote/194) ### Vote: Yes ### Rationale: > [@Leuts](#): > > Lido V3 is the next stage in Lido’s strategy creating more flexibility and a better impactful user experience for nearly all stakeholders and users of Lido. The key will be ensuring we don’t get lost in the complexity. ### [#195](https://vote.lido.fi/vote/195) ### Vote: Yes ### Rationale: Onchain execution of more snapshot signals: 1. **Change Curated Staking Module fee to 3.5%** , as per Snapshot decision. 2. **Raise SDVT Staking Module stake share limit to 4.3% and priority exit threshold to 4.78%** , as proposed on the Forum. This equalizes the clusters in SDVT, bringing some clusters to 80 keys. 3. **Set A41 Node Operator soft target validators limit to 0** , as requested on the Forum. 4. **Set Easy Track TRP limit to 15’000’000 LDO** , as per Snapshot decision. 5. **Add sUSDS token to stablecoins Allowed Tokens Registry and sUSDS transfer permission to Easy Track EVM Script Executor in Aragon Finance** , as proposed in TMC-6 on the Forum. 6. **Transfer MATIC from Lido Treasury to Liquidity Observation Lab (LOL) Multisig**, as proposed in TMC-5 on the Forum. I have reviewed the payload using the verification tools and all looks good. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2026, 3:57pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/25 "2026-01-28T15:57:39Z")
## [Rewards Share Committee Reform](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0xb4a35720b03f4c888c2fb41ab66ed324262d7a5b4696ffc3ee20bb35ebb0df6f) Forum post [here](https://research.lido.fi/t/rewards-share-program-committee-updates/11107/6) ### Vote: For ### Rationale: It makes sense for this to be committee driven to move quickly and adapt to pressing needs in the market. ## [DVT & DVV Incentive Allocation Changes](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x8b8619f09213b868708b25cb2512023234e5e160cba5c291f4e9d944d2ccd3fa) Forum post here: [Proposal: DVT & DVV Incentive Allocation Changes - #9 by Anonimo\_Anonimo](https://research.lido.fi/t/proposal-dvt-dvv-incentive-allocation-changes/11076/9) ### Vote: For ### Rationale: Using the SSV Network Fee removes the risk of staking at a loss during market volatility or unfavorable prices. In general I am in favour of dynamic fees, quorums, etc. as they react better to market volitility which is more common in our industry. ## [Vote #198](https://vote.lido.fi/vote/198) ### Vote: Yes ### Rationale: Time for Lido V3 Phase 2! and not to forget raising the CSM stake share limit to 7.5% which has done excellently well as a program. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 8:09am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/26 "2026-03-03T08:09:23Z")
### [Authorize $5M DAO Treasury Allocation into Lido Earn ETH + USD Vaults](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0xd32eab4ce41e2754d8a51fdf89bd9f4eb43ecbeb7b60d0e93ce84bc3e4d4c8a3) Forum post [here](https://research.lido.fi/t/lido-earn-competing-on-trust-5m-treasury-allocation/11228) **Voted: Yes** **Reasoning:** Skin in the game is a crucial way to create incentive alignment in our industry. This helps BD work in stVault adoption. Glad to see there was some feedback in the forum and adjustments to the loss trigger. ### [Extend Delegate Incentivization Program + Update Terms](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x7f28fddde63f492de5c9dce4f992b6e0565328f258f27aa769e50520dfd1be0b) Forum post [here](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x7f28fddde63f492de5c9dce4f992b6e0565328f258f27aa769e50520dfd1be0b) **Voted: Yes** **Reasoning:** The delegate incentivization program has gone well. Quorum is more easily reached albeit with some effort, which is good, and there are reputable individuals and projects with skin in the game now actively participating. I am not a fan of a change from payment in LDO to USDC/T, etc. but understand that the amount of LDO given out was not enough to make a material impact on decisions on value accrual, nor helping to reach quorum. Reducing operational overhead is always good. Very happy to see Agora removed as Aragon is the leading governance and tokenomic service and tooling provider in the industry! ### [Allow Stakin to continue Node Operations following acquisition by The Tie](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x60d9126fed2a492a22ef53942a16a7a8a7ec3a576ffc2b2367ebcec8eb6baa30) Forum post [here](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x60d9126fed2a492a22ef53942a16a7a8a7ec3a576ffc2b2367ebcec8eb6baa30) **Voted: For** **Reasoning:** We don’t see a change from an independent node operator to being part of a larger organization, especially a credible one, as being a huge centralization risk at this point. The Tie is a credible firm. In fact, it’s good to see a smooth transition rather than losing node operators. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2026, 10:32am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/27 "2026-04-09T10:32:38Z")
# Onchain Aragon Vote: ## [Vote 199](https://dao.lido.fi/vote/199) The most boring onchain vote ever! Not complaining. I’ve gone through the payload → no issues found → a lot of bug fixes, ops, execution of snapshot proposals, security, and admin. God speed. # Offchain Snapshot Signals: ## [**Increase Lido Alliance BORG Operational Easy Track Limits to align with EGG**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x429bdf30549800d3ed87ffa701802d267f6a1e06d1719c6f0a4cb2ecefde521e) **Vote: FOR** Previously accepted GOOSE-3 mandate. I mistakenly thought this was new funds being requested but it’s simply opening up the limits the multisig can work with. A 6 month operational windows is more pragmatic than 3 months. There’s an onchain vote to follow for secondary scrutiny. ## [**Lido DAO Ops Multisigs Policy 3.0**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0xde04e720b6c44e6d5a356021e464dc4d4b3036c6602c6088806f1f898cb7a56b) **Vote: FOR** All the changes are good and I am not going to block this from passing but i’d consider already working on a 3.1 or 4.0 which includes an airgapped or dedicated device for signing above x range. Similarly at a designated range, dual governance, whereby a designated security signer approves or doesn’t veto an optimistic stage. This is common in tradfi. They should be completely separate from the proposal creating multisig. ## [**Introduce an Identified DVT Cluster type in the Community Staking Module**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x1d416954538fb9b82aae05daca1be29f7b20d5f9fac61bd2eb9da1f5901a3867) ## [**Redirect DVT & APM Incentives to Current Meta Treasury and LoL**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x60cfe3531cd13ab84f5f6aaef7bcaab1747cbea4544dc7d18daaf642e36c9d39) **Vote: FOR** Both approvals allow for more efficient management of the respective programs with little downside. ## [**From LNOSG to CMC: Evolving Curated Staking Modules Governance**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x1c929502f12c61a510c71965d7a7f82dcc76b5d812e2f52796f6bacd6f66e32b) **Vote: FOR** I don’t see a need for LDO holders to continuously vote on operational matters such as these. As long as multisig best practises (3.0) are used and the LDO token holders have ultimate control to reneg powers I am okay with this running more leanly. ---
**Author:** ![polar](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/polar/32/4806_2.png) [@polar](https://research.lido.fi/u/polar)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2026, 11:35am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/28 "2026-04-09T11:35:45Z")
> [@Leuts](#): > > I don’t see a need for LDO holders to continuously vote on operational matters such as these. I would echo this. They are a little too granular to need DAO voting. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2026, 1:50pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/29 "2026-04-24T13:50:10Z")
# Onchain Aragon Vote: ## [**Vote** **#200**](https://dao.lido.fi/vote/200) Most boring payload to review! Not complaining, but going to complain below anyways. **Vote: YES** A frustrating proposal to vote on but it makes sense. The faster the industry can cover the short-fall the less of a short-fall and damage will have to be filled. Lido and Mellow currently are on the hook for $20 million USD within the earnETH vault, if Lido was planning on covering the lost amount then this is less than that amount. The amount is reasonable in comparison to other teams donating and obviously much less than those “lending” an amount. Question: @Jenya_K how is Mellow involved in the recovery? In general this was a lack due diligence on listing assets within earnETH. Poor access-control is the cause of 85% of hacks and over $12 billion in lost funds in the last 5 years. I will be putting something together for this. Regardless it makes sense to vote yes! Let’s fix this shit and move on. ---
**Author:** ![lidolabs-operations](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7cd45c/32.png) [@lidolabs-operations](https://research.lido.fi/u/lidolabs-operations)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2026, 7:44pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/30 "2026-04-27T19:44:28Z")
Thanks for raising this. On the Mellow role in the recovery: > [@Lido DAO contribution to coordinated rsETH relief effort](https://research.lido.fi/t/lido-dao-contribution-to-coordinated-rseth-relief-effort/11483/23): > > Yes, curators are involved, but mainly on the operational side. The immediate priority is protecting users and unwinding the vault safely; curators’ loss participation is a separate track and will be settled later based on fairness and contracts. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 7:27am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/31 "2026-05-21T07:27:18Z")
## [On-chain vote #201](http://dao.lido.fi/vote/201) Forum post [here](https://research.lido.fi/t/lip-28-dual-governance/10032/18) ### Vote: Yes ### Rationale: Execution of the the signalling via an on-chain vote. **Extend Dual Governance Emergency Protection** - redundancy is key to security, nothing beats dual governance for user protection. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 7:30am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/32 "2026-05-21T07:30:52Z")
**Offchain Snapshot Signals:** [Adopt the Node Operator Type Assessment Framework for CMv2](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x2b221847bae789551593115be9a364db4c9a478056d6394b1bef7728790258ee) **Vote: Approve** **Rationale:** This mechanism accounts for fluctuating market conditions, leveraging structured fee incentives to attract high-value operators. Agreed with @Lanski : “My main caution is obvious: this gives the CMC a lot of practical influence over the framework so the transparency and reassessment discipline really matter. But as a base layer: ✅” All other signals were sadly missed. My first ever! ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2026, 3:38pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/33 "2026-06-16T15:38:31Z")
**Offchain Snapshot Signals:** 1. **[LIP-35: Staking Router v3 Architecture and Key Parameters](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x8fdec5d2cb70f8a266c4f5a269051fcfa985fab0f66cbe747702719d7433f606)** **Vote: For** **Rationale:** V3 of the Staking Router solves rewards calculation and stake distribution, making Lido Core more flexible. I’m curious how many more core upgrades we need in this current market. Audited by great auditors. Pretty big initiative with some risk, but seems like Lido DAO contributors are aware. 1. **[LIP-33: CMv2 and CSMv3 Architecture, Key Parameters, Rollout Plan](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x7b07bc31f0b38b69a117473031bc126becc70b9fa37246b53d9fe5a841c814f5)** **Vote: For** **Rationale:** CSM has been a much better program than DVT. This seems like a rational next implementation that addresses limitations. An emergency plan is in place should a vulnerability be discovered during the migraiton. 1. **[Lido Labs Board Update: Appointment of Nemo as Director](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x3e74af3eb9119c60616c93d1ecccc3bcbd1af27e3895f2e354217872ae116e76)** **Vote: For** **Rationale:** Nemo is trusted by the industry and Lido community. I am unaware of his previous experience, but as most large decisions are still DAO driven I see the role as somewhat more administrative. I don’t see a large risk here. 1. **[Wind Down Simple DVT Module Regular Clusters](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x6ab9651fba999ba29ba780fe61d68cc23e7aeb83c841181c5c1933dec9197f37)** **Vote: For** **Rationale:** Lido needs to consolidate its staking betts, reduce cost, and focus on hedging ETH. I think focusing on Core and CSM is more than enough and I don’t see any hole a new competitor could supplant Lido in filling regarding stETH. 1. **[Revoke Canonical Status of (w)stETH Bridge Endpoints on Selected Chains and Authorize NEC for Revocations](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x09880de4739dcef13c4aa5605f1dca23556fc7495d09ecc84561a10f26a59b5c)** **Vote: For** **Rationale:** L2, sidechain, etc. have contracted in this new market. The cost and risk of continued support of deployments on networks that either don’t have PMF or don’t make sense business wise is large. Sometimes, as I mention about deprecated DVT simple module clusters, sunsetting is as valuable if not more valuable than launching new things. It reduces risk, lets contributors focus, and decreases cost. We’ve done something similar at Aragon. 1. **[Galaxy Node Operator Infrastructure Update](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x644ddd8079f1f802f3da16b11556412cec4f753a1b942fa8456c631a265a4083)** **Vote: For** **Rationale:** A bit of a strange vote as we were previously instructed this would not happen, but, it seems the risk is low for this migration/update. Lido Contributors are surveying the changes. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2026, 6:55pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/34 "2026-06-18T18:55:22Z")
## **[On-chain Vote #202: CircuitBreaker Activation, LOL Limit, Pier Two Rename, Chorus One Deactivation](https://dao.lido.fi/vote/202)** ### **Vote: Yes** ### **Rationale:** Standard execution bundle. Chorus one was the only onchain vote. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2026, 8:57am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/35 "2026-07-14T08:57:14Z")
Offchain Snapshot Signals: ### 1. **[0x02 CSM: New Permissionless Module Launch](https://snapshot.org/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0xed2a3b1f796cefdd531abe14ba01363b2da7887434cefdd54ba71ffb6dff59a7)** **Vote: For** **Rationale:** Ethereum have ratified these credentials and Lido needs to swiftly adapt. CSM is growing and this improves capital efficiency and hopefully margins. A lot of flexibility is also added which is a better UX for stakers. It really does seem like a win-win. ### 2. [Adopt the CMv2 Penalty Framework](https://snapshot.org/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0xa4179234377bab093a8ee46da0f430d51bb343d00ca74ce8bf1d7d8cdb0db9dd) **Vote: For** **Rationale:** I prefer removing subjectivity for penalisation whenever possible, but sometimes it is required, leads to a better outcome, and is operationally viable. This seems to reduce governance overhead for delegates which is good, is overall reasonable and designed to be proportional. It is important to make sure these social rules are dialed in and transparent. There are a few commentors in the forum requesting LDO as a stake however I think this is overly complex with little potential ROI. Penalties are infrequent and already need to be denominated in stETH. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2026, 8:09am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/36 "2026-07-16T08:09:20Z")
## [Aragon Vote 203](https://dao.lido.fi/vote/203) **Vote: Yes** **Rationale:** Onchain execution of two previous signals: [LIP-35 (SRv3)](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x8fdec5d2cb70f8a266c4f5a269051fcfa985fab0f66cbe747702719d7433f606) and [LIP-33 (CMv2 and CSMv3)](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x7b07bc31f0b38b69a117473031bc126becc70b9fa37246b53d9fe5a841c814f5). Payload matches verification guide. Audits and deployment verifications provided. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2026, 2:25pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/37 "2026-08-04T14:25:04Z")
Offchain Signal: [**Lido Alliance BORG Update: Appointment of Bryce Howarth as a New Director**](https://snapshot.org/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x4271b19b72c22db46f601fda70b8c228f752c318d7a3bf11ada93671201add2e) **Vote: Yes** **Rationale:** Most boards in similar jurisdictions have a local and independent director. I trust the existing board members decision to add this new member. Horizen’s seems professional with a diversity of employees with different experiences. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2026, 12:17pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/38 "2026-08-07T12:17:06Z")
## **[On-chain Vote #204: NEST Execution, LOL Stablecoin Easy Track, CSM Share Limits Factory Fix](https://dao.lido.fi/vote/204)** ### **Vote: Yes** ### **Rationale:** Already commented above on Snapshot vote. This is execution onchain. Re: **NEST (Automated LDO Buyback)**. Exactly what every project will inventibaly have to do regardless of if CLARITY passes if they want to be open to the US market. Automated and pre-programmed buybacks are about streamlining operations, decreasing costs, and becoming compliant. Lido leading as usual. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 3:52pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/39 "2026-09-16T15:52:06Z")
## **Aragon onchain vote** **[Vote #205: EDF (LIP-37), Kiln → Stakely DSM rotation, Deposit Reserve Target ET](https://dao.lido.fi/vote/205)** ### **Vote: Yes** ### **Rationale:** Access-control/opse hacks comprise 83%+ of the industries exposed vulnerabilities. Right now, doing something as simple as rotating an Oracle or Deposit Security Module (DSM) hot key requires a full 10-day DAO vote. If a key gets compromised, waiting over a week to fix it is a security risk, and the friction keeps guardians from doing routine rotations as often as they should. LIP-37 fixes this by introducing dedicated `DelegationContracts`. It lets key owners immediately revoke a compromised key and queue up a replacement without dragging the entire protocol through a governance vote. The community feedback made a strong case for this: the code is minimal and immutable, it includes a safety cooldown so bad actors can’t just slam through changes, and it allows zero-downtime key migrations. Great proposal imo. ## Snapshot Signals: [**Lido Alliance BORG Foundation Update: Appointment of Leeward Supervisors Limited as Supervisor**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x5753c2a012a1733420aa771b7cc8f36912010e277153be5f0281e2196cb0f3a5) ### **Vote: Yes** ### **Rationale:** Lido needs a new Supervisor as MetaLex LLP has stepped down. Leeward seems a natural fit: “Leeward is a Cayman Islands governance, compliance and fiduciary services firm specialising in Web3 and digital assets, and the current Supervisor of Lido Labs Foundation. Through that role, it is already familiar with the structure and functions of the entities operating adjacent to Lido DAO.” [**Authorize a Contingent LDO CEX Liquidity Market-Making Mandate**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x71b50a792e4606e593ff4502b1753aa3fb894a0bf994d6a5f1d42cee9c94a594) ### **Vote: Yes** ### **Rationale:** This was a more contentious discussion as most people find the potential delisting of LDO from major exchanges as a sign of the tokens value to the market. That’s a deeper discussion already being addressed. The proposal itself however has merit, ensuring that delistings don’t happen by propping up liquidity as required. This is only if required. I trust the Growth Team to do the best job here, keeping costs low. I voted Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Leuts](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/leuts/32/4427_2.png) [@Leuts](https://research.lido.fi/u/Leuts)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2026, 5:46am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019/40 "2026-09-22T05:46:38Z")
## Snapshot Signal: [**Proposal for Comprehensive Expense Optimization and NEST/stETH Buyback Parameter Restructuring**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0x517a6972a1b5ac20b4237b83a794f1ec4230ebe2cd35c293d6c03dafee40980f) ### **Vote: Against** ### **Rationale:** 1. The proposal is weak on details and execution taking a scorched earth methodology to making changes at Lido. 2. Value accrual should start conservatively as is the existing plan. **To note:** I have previously expressed both publicly and privately my belief that Lido’s service providers could run more leanly and will continue to push that agenda, however it needs to be done safely and in order to achieve the best outcome based upon the goals voted upon by the Lido DAO. Furthermore, with the market looking positive right now, bets on growth are critical to maximise Lido’s market share and decoupling from ETH. This can eventually improve returns for LDO holders. [Previous page](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019.md?page=1) [Next page](https://research.lido.fi/t/anthony-leuts-delegate-thread/8019.md?page=3)