This question is for Lido Node Operators Sub Governance Group (ETH)
What are the respective IDs for each NO?
can be found at easytrack archives but is there any page which maintains it?
What is the current keys limit for each NO?
enacted limits can be again viewed at easytrack archives but in case of Lido Easy Track
Thank you @Izzy.
Wave-4 onboarded 8 operators (Rocklogic, ________________, Cryptomanufaktur, Kukis Global, Nethermind, Chainsafe, Prysmatic Labs & sigmaprime) and can be found here. For a report that I am writing, I assumed (______________) as Anonymous Operator which conflicted with hex dashboard.
Que1. Are _____________ & Attestant BVI Limited same NOs?
Que2. Are anonymous NOs eligible to apply at Lido DAO?
Que3. Bloackdaemon when onboarded in wave-2 has changed its name to anyblock+blockdaemon as per hex dashboard?
Also it would be helpful if below user journey can be fixed
1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → Click on (Hyperlinked Node Op Logo) → Error Page
it applies to all waves of all assets (ETH, SOL, MATIC)
Hi Praneet, thank you for providing feedback! Let me address your questions:
Q1 - Yes, they are the same. This looks like a logo issue, it seems that the logo link was dropped, causing the entire card to become invalid. We have replaced the link with a self-hosted one, so the card should be clear now.
Q2 - Currently, anonymous NOs are not eligible to apply for the curated node operator set. However, we have recently launched the staking router, which introduces the possibility of adding other modules. These modules could enable permissionless participation, allowing anonymous NOs to be added. You can learn more about this in our blog post here.
Q3 - Blockdaemon and Anyblock Analytics merged a while ago. The full details can be found in the linked post here. Essentially, we consider them as a single NO from that point onward, even though there were still two entities on-chain. With the introduction of V2 and enabled validator exits, Blockdaemon and Lido contributors are actively working on consolidating the keys into a single entity. More information can be found in this proposal here.
Lastly, regarding the user journey issue you mentioned, we are aware of it. The problem is tied to the specific setup of these pages. We have it on our backlog to address, but it appears to be related to the platform we are using to manage the content for the Operator Portal. We have explored various alternatives, but each one introduced its own set of issues.