Ignas Delegate Thread

Date Voted: June 25, 2025

47. Proposal: Proposal for Updating Block Proposer Rewards Policy to Lido on Ethereum SNOP on Block Proposals v3 (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: Support the SNOP v3 proposal as it introduces critical technical safeguards for Node Operators in the block proposal process.

    The current policy no longer fits the post-Pectra, MEV-Boost, and Staking Router 2.0 reality. This update brings the clarity and structure that Node Operators need.

    SNOP v3 is essential infrastructure for scaling Lido securely and responsibly.

48. Proposal: Decision on Kyber Network’s position in the Oracle Set: rotate to Caliber or remove and change the quorum (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Rotate Kyber Network to Caliber

  • Rationale: Caliber has completed their test run with stable and reliable performance. I see no reason to block the transition.

    Supporting this also avoids potential risks from changing the quorum.

    Voted Rotate Kyber Network to Caliber.

49. Proposal: DVT Integration Guidelines for the Curated Module Node Operators (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: An easy yes from me.

    Intra-operator DVT spreads signing across multiple nodes instead of relying on one server. That really lowers the chance of slashing from things like hardware failure or network issues.

    It also aligns Lido with Ethereum’s decentralization ethos. A necessary step to avoid centralization risks as scrutiny around MEV and censorship grows.

1 Like

50. Proposal: Vote #189 (Onchain)

  • Date Voted: June 26, 2025

  • Vote: Yes

  • Rationale: Voting yes with same reason on Snapshot vote. Some of these parameters might seem confusing at first, but Dual Governance can actually make Lido stronger and more stable long term.

    Timelocks and veto rights will protect stETH holders from risky proposals. When they feel safe, they will stake more ETH, which grows the DAO’s assets and trust in the long run :slight_smile:

    Also a support from my team to spread this amazing news :slight_smile: https://x.com/PinkBrains_io/status/1921054412396785873

1 Like

Date Voted: July 22, 2025

51. Proposal: CSM v2 Final Rollout (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: Support this proposal as it strengthens the Lido protocol’s alignment with Ethereum’s decentralization roadmap.

    By enforcing a per Node Operator stakeShareLimit, this change will:

    • Reduce overconcentration risks, ensuring no single Node Operator controls too much stake.
    • Encourage broader validator participation, boosting resilience and neutrality.

    Voted yes!

52. Proposal: Triggerable Withdrawals Framework in the Lido Protocol (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: I’m voting yes. This proposal will meaningfully reduce trust assumptions in the Lido protocol by enabling validator exits through the Execution Layer.

    It will improve security, fault tolerance, and lay the groundwork for permissionless modules CSM.

1 Like

53. Proposal: Vote #190 (Onchain)

  • Date Voted: July 24, 2025

  • Vote: Yes

  • Rationale:

    For “Rotate Lido on Ethereum Oracle Set member Kyber Network for Caliber”

    → Support with same reason on Snapshot vote. Caliber has completed their test run with stable and reliable performance. I see no reason to block the transition.

    For “Increase CSM stake share limit from 2% to 3%”

    → Voting yes with same reason on Snapshot vote. Lido can activate ~50 new Node Operators if the limit is raised to 3%, which will help diversify and decentralize the network on Ethereum.

    For “Enable a grace period for CSM Node Operators”

    → Vote yes. Introducing a grace period by setting keyRemovalCharge = 0 ensures a fair and transparent transition for current CSM Node Operators as we move toward CSM v2.

    It allows operators to exit without penalty if they do not wish to continue under the new reward structure.

    For “Introduce a simplified CSVerifier for CSM”

    → The simplified CSVerifier removes unused code that would otherwise require unnecessary hard fork maintenance. It has no impact on node operators and helps streamline the upcoming CSM v2 upgrade. Voted yes!

    For “ Update the reward address and name for Node Operator ID 2 P2P.ORG - P2P Validator"

    → Voted yes.This is a routine update to reflect the correct name and reward address for Node Operator ID 2.

    For “ Switch off Easy Track environment for PML, ATC, RCC entities, deprecated after Snapshot-approved transition to Lido Labs and Lido Ecosystem BORG Foundations.”

    → Voted yes. This aims to clean up the system, remove unused processes, and ensure alignment with Lido DAO’s new governance structure.

1 Like

54. Proposal: Nethermind → Twinstake Validator Operations Migration (Snapshot)

  • Date Voted: September 2, 2025

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: I voted yes. This proposal ensures the continuity and security of Lido’s validator operations.

    Nethermind has played an important role in the Curated Set, the proposed migration to Twinstake comes with a well documented security model and operational continuity plan.

    Approving this migration allows Lido DAO to maintain strong validator diversity while minimizing operational disruption.

55. Proposal: Vote #191 (Onchain)

  • Date Voted: September 4, 2025

  • Vote: Yes

  • Rationale: I support this upgrade to strengthen governance security.

    This fix resolves a disclosed vulnerability in Dual Governance.

    It safely migrates to a new instance, secures the old contracts, and preserves committee continuity.

1 Like

Date Voted: September 23, 2025

56. Proposal: Establish the stVaults Committee (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Support

  • Rationale: I voted Yes on establishing the stVaults Committee.

    This structure is needed to launch stVaults in V3 safely and efficiently. A dedicated group can move faster on non standard requests while still prioritizing protocol security and DAO revenue.

    I see the risks of concentrated decisions but as long as the committee disclose any conflicts of interest, and set a review timeline so the DAO can reassess its necessity

    With that in place, it’s a simple step to support growth while keeping DAO oversight intact.

57. Proposal: NEST - Network Economic Support Tokenomics (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Approve

  • Rationale: Voted Yes. NEST is a forward looking step that improves tokenholder confidence in how the DAO manages surplus and long term tokenomics

    By automatically converting surplus stETH into LDO, DAO gains a programmatic tool to reduce circulating supply and accumulate assets for future strategic use.

    The modular design also gives us flexibility to adapt for example, only buying when prices are favorable, or even reversing the flow if needed in different market conditions.

    I recognize risks like treasury power concentration or added technical complexity. However, these risks can be managed with proper parameters, periodic review, and transparent reporting.

58. Proposal: Lido V3 — Design & Implementation Proposal (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: A big yes on Lido V3.

    This proposal delivers strong benefits:

    • Modular vault design allows more flexibility to onboard different operator types and networks.
    • Risk isolation per vault increases security and resilience.
    • Opens the door for future innovations without needing a full redesign again.

    Howerver, new users may be confused if depositing 1 ETH results in receiving less than 1 stETH, which could create peg pressure if communication is unclear.

    Governance will also become heavier with more vault parameters to manage. Still, with the stVaults Committee already in a vote and proper communication efforts, I believe the advantages for Lido’s long term growth clearly outweigh these downsides.

1 Like

59. Proposal: Vote #192 (Onchain)

  • Date Voted: September 24, 2025

  • Vote: Yes

  • Rationale:

    1. For “Upgrade to CSM v2 and increase CSM stake share limit from 3% to 5%”

    → Voted yes with same reason on Snapshot. This proposal strengthens the Lido protocol’s alignment with Ethereum’s decentralization roadmap.

    By enforcing a per Node Operator stakeShareLimit, this change will:

    • Reduce overconcentration risks, ensuring no single Node Operator controls too much stake.
    • Encourage broader validator participation, boosting resilience and neutrality.

    2. For “Activate Triggerable Withdrawals”

    → Support with same reason on Snapshot. This proposal will meaningfully reduce trust assumptions in the Lido protocol by enabling validator exits through the Execution Layer.

    It will improve security, fault tolerance, and lay the groundwork for permissionless modules CSM.

    3. For”Update the reward address and name for Node Operator ID 25”

    → This proposal ensures the continuity and security of Lido’s validator operations.

    Approving this migration allows Lido DAO to maintain strong validator diversity while minimizing operational disruption.

    4. Rotate Deposit Security Committee address for Kiln

    → A standard security measure that strengthens key management and reduces risk exposure. Voted yes!

Date Voted: October 17, 2025

60. Proposal: Proposal for Updating Lido on Ethereum Validator Exits SNOP to v3 (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: I support the proposal.

    Approving SNOP v3 is a strategic step for Lido DAO to modernize its operations, align with Ethereum’s latest technical advancements, and prepare for a multi module future.

    While it may introduce short term pressure on Node Operators, the long term benefits in terms of security and protocol credibility are well worth it.

61. Proposal: Empowering Lido Ecosystem Foundation to Lead Bridge-Related Partnerships (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: This proposal allows Lido DAO to evolve from a slow, collective decision making model into a more professional and agile structure while maintaining strong safeguards through the Bridge Security Council.

    Voted yes!

2 Likes

Date Voted: November 3, 2025

62. Proposal: Lido Ecosystem Grants Organization (LEGO) — Framework Update 1 October 2025 (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: I agree with these adjustments to the LEGO framework.

    The proposal demonstrates stronger financial efficiency, avoids artificial budgeting, and reduces idle capital temporarily locked in the LEGO multisig.

    By adopting this framework, Lido shows governance discipline and maturity, knowing how and when to optimize resources and control spending effectively.

    Voted in favor!

63. Proposal: Transfer TRP to Lido Labs Foundation and Amend TRP Terms (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: I support this proposal as it consolidates the TRP under the Lido Labs Foundation, which now serves as Lido’s main operational entity with transparent bylaws and direct DAO oversight.

    This change removes unnecessary layers and puts all contributor rewards under one responsible organization.

    The amended TRP terms present a sensible financial adjustment:

  • Retaining the same 22M LDO cap with no increase in DAO expenditure

  • Reclaiming 6.99M unallocated LDO for a redesigned TRP aligned with current market conditions

  • Shortening the vesting period (2 years instead of 4) with lower grant multipliers to improve cost efficiency while keeping contributors aligned through continuous vesting.

    I voted For.

Date Voted: November 26, 2025

64. Proposal: Curated Module Fee Changes

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: Support the changes.

    The proposed tiered fee adjustments meaningfully recognize Node Operators who contribute extra effort or maintain critical client infrastructure, creating stronger incentives for high quality participation.

    At the same time, these adjustments optimize DAO revenue, providing additional resources that can be reinvested into ecosystem growth and long term security.

65. Proposal: Conversion of Treasury Stablecoins into sUSDS or TMMFs (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Approve

  • Rationale: This strategy puts idle stablecoins to productive use, generating yield while keeping the DAO’s operations secure and well capitalized.

    This is an easy yes.

Date Voted: December 12, 2025

66. Proposal: GOOSE 2025 cycle: Lido DAO goals for 2026 (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Adopt GOOSE-3 proposal

  • Rationale: I’m supporting this proposal.

    This is a big shift, gives DAO a coherent, forward looking strategy when Lido is entering a new phase.

    With V3, stVaults, institutional access, and rebalancing mechanisms coming, the protocol now has the foundations to move beyond core staking and pursue broader growth.Adopt GOOSE-3 proposal

67. Proposal: Ecosystem Grant gRequest (EGG): Executing GOOSE-3 (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Approve 2026 EGG

  • Rationale: Following what I supported in the GOOSE proposal, I’m voting Yes.

    This proposal brings the Labs, Ecosystem, and Alliance Foundations under one aligned plan, gives us clearer ownership of workstreams and avoids the fragmented budgeting we’ve had in the past.

68. Proposal: Lido Alliance BORG – Amendment of Bylaws to Enable GOOSE-3 Execution (Snapshot

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: A simple yes.

    Updating the Alliance BORG’s mandate is a minimal but meaningful fix that prevents operational bottlenecks later and avoids forcing the DAO into unnecessary legal complexity.

69. Proposal: Adopt The SEAL Safe Harbor Agreement (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: Safe Harbor is quickly becoming the industry standard.

    Uniswap, Pendle, Balancer and others already adopting it to empower whitehats to intervene during active exploits.

    Happy to see a formal whitehat framework coming to Lido.

    It removes uncertainty, accelerates crisis response, and aligns Lido with best practices proven effective across top DeFi systems.

Date voted: December 17, 2025

70. Proposal: Vote #194 (Onchain)

  • Vote: Yes

  • Rationale: I’m voting Yes on #194.

    Lido V3 is a major upgrade. A soft launch is the right way to bring it to mainnet.

    The proposal keeps strict limits, disables higher risk features, and focuses on partner testing first.

    This is a cautious and responsible step before opening V3 to the wider public.

71. Proposal: Vote #195 (Onchain)

  • Vote: Yes

  • Rationale:
    1. For “Change Curated Staking Module fee to 3.5%”
    → Support the changes with same reason on Snapshot vote. The proposed tiered fee adjustments meaningfully recognize Node Operators who contribute extra effort or maintain critical client infrastructure, creating stronger incentives for high quality participation.

    2. For “Raise SDVT Staking Module stake share limit to 4.3% and priority exit threshold to 4.78%”
    → Support the change. This removes a technical bottleneck caused by net stake outflows and lets SDVT clusters reach the validator capacity already approved by the DAO.

    It doesn’t expand scope, change rewards, or add new risk.

    3. For “Set A41 Node Operator soft target validators limit to 0”
    → Voting yes. A41 has clearly communicated its plan to wind down, setting the soft target to 0 allows validators to exit in a controlled and predictable way.

    4. For “Set Easy Track TRP limit to 15’000’000 LDO”
    → This item simply implements the Snapshot decision by setting the Easy Track TRP limit to 15M LDO. It just applies the parameters already agreed by the DAO.

    Voted yes!

    5. For “Add sUSDS token to stablecoins Allowed Tokens Registry and sUSDS transfer permission to Easy Track EVM Script Executor in Aragon Finance”
    → This allows the DAO to earn yield on idle stablecoins by adding sUSDS to Easy Track, with limited scope and low execution risk. Voted yes!

    6. For “Transfer MATIC from Lido Treasury to Liquidity Observation Lab (LOL) Multisig”
    → This is a simple treasury housekeeping step. Moving MATIC to the LOL multisig so it can be converted to USDC and aligned with the current treasury strategy. Support!

72. Proposal: Vote #196 (Onchain)

  • Date Voted: December 24, 2025
  • Vote: Yes
  • Rationale: This is a technical implementation of a Snapshot-approved decision to transfer and update the TRP. Voted yes!

73. Proposal: Vote #197 (Onchain)

  • Date voted: December 30, 2025

  • Vote: Yes

  • Rationale: This proposal mitigates risk after the loss of control over a vesting address by recovering the allocation, splitting it across multiple wallets, and reapplying a 1-year vesting period.

    While unconventional, it improves asset security and reduces near term token pressure, aligning with the DAO’s long-term interests. I support the proposal