Establishing the APM Committee

Proposals
1

TL;DR

This proposal aims to establish the Auxiliary Proposer Mechanisms (APM) Committee, which will be responsible for reviewing, approving, and maintaining the list of APMs that Lido Node Operators are allowed to use. The committee ensures that only secure, value-aligned proposer-layer mechanisms (such as preconfirmations) are permitted, as well as establishing the conditions of fair use.

Purpose

The APM Committee is proposed to guide and oversee the evaluation, adoption, and ongoing governance of Auxiliary Proposer Mechanisms (APMs) within the Lido protocol. APMs include innovations such as preconfirmations, proposer commitments, and other mechanisms that enhance block proposal behavior. The committee will ensure these mechanisms align with Ethereum’s ethos and Lido’s values of protocol neutrality, validator accountability, and long-term sustainability.

Context & Motivation

Recent developments in proposer-layer innovation have opened up new ways for validators to engage in value capture and contribute to network efficiency. As the Lido protocol supports a broad and decentralized validator set, there is a growing need for a structured approach to:

  • Evaluating new APMs for security, fairness, and protocol alignment.
  • Defining implementation and usage guidelines for Node Operators.
  • Ensuring transparency and accountability in how external rewards from APMs are handled.
  • Maintaining DAO visibility and control over mechanisms that touch delegated capital.

Committee Responsibilities

The APM Committee will:

  1. Maintain and publish the APM List, a registry of APMs approved for use by Lido Node Operators.
  2. Review proposals for new APMs seeking inclusion, alongside supplementary evaluations made by Lido contributor.
  3. Define and update the configuration guidelines associated with APM usage.
  4. Coordinate with NOM (Node Operator Mechanisms) to monitor APM compliance and raise flags or propose DAO actions when needed.

DAO Alignment

The committee is designed to uphold the DAO’s goals of:

  • Sustainable validator incentives and responsible value capture.
  • Security and risk minimization in validator operations.
  • Transparency and accountability in external mechanisms interacting with Lido stake.
  • Protocol neutrality, ensuring mechanisms improve Ethereum broadly without privileging specific actors.

Operating Model

The APM Committee will be composed of a balanced mix of Lido contributors (from technical workstreams and NOM), technical reviewers, risk experts, and APM community contributors that can contribute the necessary expertise to the decision-making process.

  • @Gabriella_S - Lido NOM contributor (myself)
  • @IvanM - Lido Tech contributor
  • @DrewVanderWerff - Commit-Boost and Fabric steward
  • Fredrik Svantes - Security expert
  • @Vish_Modali - representing Chorus One, Lido Node Operator
  • @mxs - representing Kiln, Lido Node Operator

The committee will convene ad hoc, operate with publicly accessible documentation and processes, and escalate decisions of strategic or financial impact to the DAO.

The APM List will be maintained as a living document within a designated public repository, alongside the Block Proposer Reward Policy. Committee members will have the appropriate access to update this document as needed. All decisions to modify the APM List must receive unanimous approval from the committee.

Once a decision is reached, it must be publicly disclosed via a post on the Lido Research Forum, including rationale. Following publication, a mandatory 7-day (calendar) review period will begin. If no objections are raised within this window, the decision will be considered ratified. If an objection is raised during the review period, the decision is paused and the parties are expected to engage in resolving the disagreement. If the objection remains unresolved after an additional 7 calendar days, the proposal defaults to “rejected”.

8 Likes
2

We support the establishment of the APM Committee as a mechanism to safeguard Lido’s validator set while enabling responsible value capture at the proposer layer.

There’s two counterpoints that needs to be balanced here for success - security, fairness, and commercial viability vs not overly restrictive slow or bureaucratic. Wrong implementation and this becomes a bottleneck process without seeing any new (institutional) growth.

As already highlighted process must remain transparent and not overly restrictive, we encourage the proposers to add in the following to the committee scope:

  • Publish clear evaluation criteria and a review timeline upfront.
  • Track and report measurable outcomes—such as added yield from approved APMs or share of value routed to the DAO.

We view this initiative as a step toward institutional-grade validator operations, and a positive precedent for standards-setting in the staking ecosystem. On that basis, we support a FOR vote.

2 Likes
3

Thank you for the thoughtful and supportive feedback!
We fully agree that balance is key to the APM Committee’s success. The emphasis on a transparent, streamlined process aligns closely with our goals.
We appreciate the concrete suggestions and will incorporate them into the committee scope, as we believe this can help set a strong standard across the staking ecosystem.

1 Like
4

I would like to add that we also need a list of those that the committee has checked but disapproved (with reasons for disapproval)

From experience with DAO, very often committees only provide positive data for use, but there is no data on which programs are better not to use - this will give more information to DAO and operators
It will also reduce the effect of personal interests (if such arise)

Second question. Will the work of this committee be paid somehow from the Treasury?

1 Like
5

We’ll make sure to provide clear reasoning for decisions on each proposal reviewed by the Committee.

Second question. Will the work of this committee be paid somehow from the Treasury?

Thanks for raising this! To clarify: there are currently no plans for compensation from the Treasury or any other source. Participation is voluntary and unpaid.

1 Like