Share/endorse the @hasu view here.
I take the view the funds were not ‘transfered to Lido due to an exploit’. An exploit unfortunately took place between two parties with no connection to the Lido protocol. As a result of a tip the hacker paid to validate this transaction, a validator participating in the Lido protocol received MEV fees. The proposal is technically requesting that Lido DAO compensate, out of its accumulated stETH, 62.5 ETH.
Not having set a precedent that Lido should or should not arbitrate these types of disputes, means that requests like these will likely continue to come in, which would end up setting a precedent. The precedent in question is that Lido DAO is in a position to arbitrate grievances between two or more parties in transactions where Lido the protocol played no role – for that matter, not even technically ‘validating activities’, as those were performed by participants that use the Lido protocol, not the DAO or stETH in and of itself.
Steakhouse will vote to reject accordingly, to maintain the DAO’s neutrality in similar cases now and in the future. We look forward to a state of minimized governance when such votes might not even be possible.
I regret that the hack took place at all and fully sympathize on a personal level.