We are strongly in support of empowering the Lido Ecosystem Foundation to lead bridge-related partnerships, as it streamlines decision-making while preserving DAO sovereignty. The current NEC model has demonstrated its capacity (e.g. expanding wstETH to multiple networks and bridging tens of thousands of ETH in the past year), but to compete in evolving cross-chain markets, Lido needs a more agile negotiation posture. The proposed structure, is a pretty good balance between speed and oversight.
The concerns re governance centralization, legal exposure, and removal of the 5-day objection window are valid; here’s our thoughts. The proposal preserves ultimate DAO authority (override, cancel, amend), embedding reversibility clauses in agreements, and requiring legal and risk review before execution. Our take is that these safeguards go a long way to protect against abuses. Moreover, NEC members themselves have signaled support for rotation and lighter roles.
Given the speed demands and competition in bridging infrastructure, we are very much in support. Granting this mandate helps reduce friction in executing partnerships, enables more responsive opportunity capture, and concentrates institutional negotiation strength in the team with the deepest relational footing.