Thank you for taking the time to respond here.
As @kai points out in his original message:
While the baseline was set, the punitive measures to not meeting that baseline across these requirements were not, which is why we’re seeking leniency here that will address future errancy by validators. While you point out that we have outsized voting authority, @Izzy is right to address that punitively removing us when we are a top performing validator with only one offending action on our record in the form of governance participation feels a bit outsized in response.
Now that we better appreciate that participation in Terra governance is a major issue toward validator performance for Lido, we have taken measures to prevent it happening again in the future. Key management makes governance participation for those who validate on multiple chains difficult, but Cosmos SDK-based solutions to this issue released on Feb22 (the same day that the baseline rules were set) should make it so that this isn’t an excuse going forward, specifically for Terra and other Cosmos-based chains. Since we weren’t notified of the rules being set, we didn’t prioritize utilizing the AuthZ module to make participation easier for ourselves.
Offering leniency would increase the number of validators offering their services to the Lido contract ahead of the next participation requirement, decreasing the impact on validator participation, in addition to ensuring that the importance of these rules is clear to all active validators by explicitly outlining the punitive measures that will be taken in not meeting the baseline.
While I respect your desire to sit by the letter of the law, this is a situation wherein the laws specific to the offense were not yet set in stone, nor shared widely. It’s likely the reason that the other offending validators are not participating in this conversation, while we are.