# Mountain Grants - Detail

**URL:** <https://research.lido.fi/t/mountain-grants-detail/5032>\
**Category:** Community Grants / Initiatives\
**Created:** [July 19, 2023, 7:16pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/mountain-grants-detail/5032 "2023-07-19T19:16:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![praneet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9a140/32.png) [@praneet](https://research.lido.fi/u/praneet)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2023, 7:16pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/mountain-grants-detail/5032/1 "2023-07-19T19:16:00Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> @colorcode6a , thanks a lot for your proposal! First of all, I completely agree that Lido should move to zk oracles. **While LEGO is authorized to approve projects up to 100k, your project would exceed this barrier due to the audits required.** This makes it an issue for the DAO to consider. As advisor to the DAO, I want to share some thoughts about how to design a good process for working w/ external suppliers. The process I have in mind works like this: DAO comes together for a general priori…

Kind attention - @Alex_L at the higlight (bold) on this response by @Hasu

 ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/uploads/lido/original/2X/8/826f9220dc30664b2722da512da3c3c8f0f0ac55.png)

> Mountains are critical improvements to Lido that have a significant impact on its growth, security, operations, etc.

It can be mentioned that the process of applying MOUNTAIN remains the same but LEGO is authorized to approve grants upto 100K so for **mountain grants** the DAO will review your application. [Something like that]

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Alex\_L](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/alex_l/32/994_2.png) [@Alex\_L](https://research.lido.fi/u/Alex_L)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2023, 10:25am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/mountain-grants-detail/5032/2 "2023-07-21T10:25:36Z")

</div>

Hey @praneet, I think we may add grant approver in the table with grant sizes, yeah, ty.

As for the particular grant in question imo Vsh is right - there are too few details known yet about the audit that may be asked to be reimbursed, and it’s conditional on if the code itself sees the light of day.

> [@\[ZKLLVM\] Trustless ZK-proof TVL oracle](https://research.lido.fi/t/zkllvm-trustless-zk-proof-tvl-oracle/5028/4):
>
> I think it’s reasonable that audits of smart contract code used by Lido are fully or partially compensated by Lido DAO but I don’t think it’s a good idea to precommit to them before the actually usable system is in place, or there’s an understanding of who can actually audit zk code; I suggest leaving this question for the future, when there’s understanding that:
> 
> - the code in question goes into upgrade proposal
> - who could be the best firms to audit this code, and what’s their ask.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![praneet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9a140/32.png) [@praneet](https://research.lido.fi/u/praneet)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2023, 11:16am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/mountain-grants-detail/5032/3 "2023-07-21T11:16:09Z")

</div>

**Particular Grant in Question** : I just used the @Hasu’s response to understand the process at large, my suggestion is not related to this grant application/applicant in any form.

My suggestion was for LEGO as whole as I wondered why protocol guild, lexpunk etc grants are not covered at [txs](https://lego.lido.fi/txs) page. It was Hasu’s response **(While LEGO is authorized to approve projects up to 100k)** that made it clear.

Thank you for acknowledging.