If current CSM EA Node Operators think that their address was not included in the list due to a mistake, they can submit an appeal in this thread using the following template:
Iām the owner of CSM NO #XXX <link to the verified signature on etherscan from manager or reward address>, and I want to appeal the decision to not include my address in the initial ICS list for CSM v2. I confirm that:
CSM NO #XXX is the only Node Operator owned/controlled/managed by me as a person/entity and I do not own/control/manage other NOs in CSM. OR
As a person/entity, I own/control/manage the following Node Operators in CSM: #XXX, #YYY, #ZZZ, ā¦ none of which were included in the list. I confirm that CSM NO #XXX should be considered my main Node Operator in the ICS consideration process.
I run all software myself (CL+EL nodes, and validator client), and I am not using āValidators as a Serviceā (Allnodes, Stakely, Launchnodes, a friend/relative etc.) for the operation of these validators.
As a person/entity, I do not act as a professional Node Operator in Ethereum or other ecosystem staking.
CSM NO #XXX has non-zero active and/or depositable validator keys in CSM as of July 4, 2025.
CSM NO #XXX does not have validators with performance below the performance threshold in the Performance Oracle reports for both May and June.
Iām the owner of CSM NO #91https://etherscan.io/verifySig/276469, and I want to appeal the decision to not include my address in the initial ICS list for CSM v2. I confirm that:
CSM NO #91 is the only Node Operator owned/controlled/managed by me as a person/entity and I do not own/control/manage other NOs in CSM.
I run all software myself (CL+EL nodes, and validator client), and I am not using āValidators as a Serviceā (Allnodes, Stakely, Launchnodes, a friend/relative etc.) for the operation of these validators. As a person/entity, I do not act as a professional Node Operator in Ethereum or other ecosystem staking.
CSM NO #91 has non-zero active and/or depositable validator keys in CSM as of July 4, 2025.
CSM NO #91 does not have validators with performance below the performance threshold in the Performance Oracle reports for both May and June 2025.
Thanks for he appeal @Blcksd. After the investigation, Lido contributors admit that Node Operator #91 was inappropriately marked as a Pro-operator.
In addition to the appeal above, Lido contributors have conducted a re-analysis that revealed that Node Operator #24 was also inappropriately marked as a Pro-operator.
The final consideration is a private request from the Node Operator #333, who requested to exclude their address from the ICS list. Here is a confirmation of the request - Ethereum Verified Signed Message
The initial ICS list was updated, considering all of the facts above. The new version is available on IPFS and GitHub.
The current version of the initial ICS list will be proposed to the Lido DAO this week. Once proposed, no more appeals will be considered. Any users who will not submit an appeal in time will have to pass the usual ICS assessment that will be launched sometime in August 2025.