Notjamiedimon Delegate Thread

Delegate Platform
1

Address: notjamiedimon.eth / 0xCE3b1e215f379A5edDbc1ee80a6dE089c0b92e55
Contact information: notjamiedimon (X)

Introduction

I have a deep understanding/experience of markets, being a trader by background. I spent time doing portfolio management and trading in both tradfi (macro) and crypto. Also dabbled in business development.

Motivation

My objective here are two folds: one for the tokenholders, and another for the DAO. For tokenholders delegating their tokens to me, I strive to provide them with well-informed, biased opinions, and to ensure their voices are heard by the DAO. For Lido DAO, I hope to provide honest feedback relatively free of DAO politics, and to contribute to healthy governance system. My actions will align with the interests of delegators and the broader community, and I hope to be a good bridge and sense-maker between the two.

Values and Decision-Making Approach

Simplicity: think in first principles. I am a strong believer in first principles thinking, especially in a complex ecosystem like DAO where there are different stakeholders and interests at play.
Ownership: acting with a sense of ownership in Lido. Being an individual delegate, I don’t realistically have the time to be involved as a delegate in other DAOs. The lack of conflict of interest will enable me to act in the best interest of Lido.

Public Acceptance

I am fully aligned with Lido’s vibe (purpose, mission, vision), and commit to the Delegate Code of Conduct.

Disclosures

I am not a delegate / contributor to any competing staking projects. I have no conflicts of interests contributing to Lido DAO, but will disclose them should they arise.

Waiver of Responsibility

By delegating to me, you acknowledge and accept that I will participate on a best-effort basis and will not be liable for any damages related to participation in the Lido Protocol or Lido DAO.

2 Likes
2

Aug’24 to Oct’24 Voting Activities

(On-chain) Vote #177
Voted: Yes
Rationale: On-chain confirmation for 1. replacing oracle members, 2. renaming node operator, 3. upgrading Aragon voting contracts. These have been discussed and passed snapshot. On-chain delegation will help improve reaching of quorum, one of the most sticking governance problems within Lido.

(On-chain) Vote #178
Voted: Yes
Rationale: Same as for #177 (re-run as a function of #177 failing to reach quorum)

(Snapshot) Should Galaxy continue in the Curated Module set following the acquisition of CryptoManufaktur?
Voted: Yes
Rationale: the acquisition brings no material impact to the operations

(Snapshot) Organize the Lido Alliance Program as a Lido-DAO-Adjacent BORG
Voted: Yes
Rationale: creating legal structure with on-chain enforceability offers Lido a great medium to pursue its business activities, while shielding itself from unlimited legal liabilities, which is very much a real, material threat for Lido itself, contributors and service providers.

(Snapshot) Increase the Proposal Threshold for Snapshot
Voted: Do Nothing
Rationale: largely agree with comments by full-time contributors in the forum discussion, i.e. spamming doesn’t seem to be a significant problem, and the proposed solution will not solve it. AFAIK, the problem has never been voiced by the community previously. Also moved to Snapshot too quickly and without significant level of engagement and consensus. Generally against voter fatigue and putting insignificant matters for vote.

(Snapshot) Lido Community Staking Module Mainnet Release Setup
Voted: Approve
Rationale: CSM is extremely important for continued decentralisation of Ethereum network, which is a mission of Lido itself. This is one topic I feel strongly about. The CSM has also undergone months of testing on Holesky, and proved satisfactory results for mainnet deployment. Agree with parameters (largely similar to testnet) and formation of CSM committee multisig too.

(Snapshot) Change Easy Track Limits for PML & ATC
Voted: Yes
Rationale: the numbers were last determined in Nov’22, so strongly support updated number based on actual cash flow analysis and current situations.

(On-chain) Proposal: Vote #179
Voted: Yes
Rationale: issues at hand (1. wstETH Optimism upgrade, 2. Easy Track setup for BORG) have been ratified by earlier Snapshots, and are not contentious (more operational in nature). The calldata match the actions proposed, and contributors’ guide was extremely helpful in guiding and expediting the review process.

1 Like
3

Updating the address
Address: 0xCE3b1e215f379A5edDbc1ee80a6dE089c0b92e55

1 Like
4

(Snapshot) Should the Lido DAO recognize the wstETH bridge endpoints on Zircuit as canonical?
Voted: Recognize
Rationale: canonical endpoints are important for minimising fragmentation risks, which in turn pose threat to stETH adoption. As such, in support of the proposal. Security-wise, audits were also performed.

(Snapshot) Integrate CSM into the Decentralized Validator Vault
Voted: Yes
Rationale: great move towards decentralisation of Lido, and resilience of Ethereum ecosystem as a whole. By having CSM within DVV, the ETH flows naturally into CSM.

(Snapshot) Lido Alliance application: BOLT
Voted: Yes
Rationale: No strong opinions on this given my lack of knowledge, but as long as Bolt and preconfirmations are part of broader priorities by Lido’s reGOOSE, I am supportive.

(On-chain) Proposal: Vote 180
Voted: Yes
Rationale: issues at hand (1. Staking router and related contracts upgrade, 2. Add CSM to the Staking Router) have been ratified by earlier Snapshots.The implementations have been audited by Ackee Blockchain, Mixbytes and ChainSecurity. The third on-chain implementation of rotating the Instadapp Oracle address is an administrative necessity.

1 Like
5

(Snapshot) Establish the Network Expansion Committee (NEC)
Voted: Approve NEC
Rationale: NEC will allow for more efficient and faster network expansion of (w)stETH across various chains, and reduce governance burden for voters. Controls, in the form of objection period, automated deployments and audits, also look sufficient.

(Snapshot) Should Pier Two continue in the Curated Module Set following the acquisition of Numic?
Voted: For
Rationale: With due diligence conducted by the LNOSG and recommended steps ensuring slow on-ramp of Pier Two, I voted FOR.

(Snapshot) Should Alchemy continue in SDVT and LoP following the acquisition of Bware Labs?
Voted: For
Rationale: Again, I believe LNOSG did its due diligence, and the acquisition seems to not pose changes to current operations of Alchemy/Bware Labs, so I voted FOR.

(Snapshot) Should Nansen continue in SDVT following the acquisition of Stakewithus?
Voted: For
Rationale: same as above

(Snapshot) Reevaluation of Lido on Polygon state
Voted: Sunset Lido on Polygon
Rationale: I support the contributors’ decision to sunset Lido’s stMATIC operations, and the steps to implement sunsetting. Despite dedicating not insignificant amount of resources (incentives, audits, contributors’ payroll, etc.), there’s been limited adoption and it’s been financially negative as Marin noted in the forum post. I don’t think it’s a good loss leader too given the current state of Polygon. Expansion into new products is tough, especially if the ecosystems are not attractive in the medium-term (i.e. more than 1 cycle) and/or ecosystem teams are not supportive of Lido expansion (they are incentivised to grow ‘native’ staking projects). However, I am supportive of exploring such options, and look forward to new endeavours down the line.

(Snapshot) GOOSE 2024 cycle: Lido DAO goals for 2025
Voted: Adopt Goals
Rationale: Hasu’s GOOSE-2 was an interesting read, and I like the new goals for 2025. Previous iterations of GOOSE and ReGOOSE focused on decentralisation of stETH (outcome: CSM, DVT modules) and Lido as a protocol (outcome: delegation), and the Lido contributors had done a great job achieving those, and it’s great to see new goals set forward. With the ideological priorities met (decentralisation), the new goals are rightly more commercial, focusing on 1/ creating new, differentiated product lines for Lido, 2/ increasing connection between $LDO token to intrinsic value of Lido as a protocol, 3/ creating a more nuanced payout for node operators. All 3 priorities and goals make sense, but I am personally keen to see how 1 (different product lines for the staking ecosystem) and 2 (LDO alignment) play out. As for 1 (different product lines for staking ecosystem), focus and preparation for staking ETFs being approved are awesome. Non-staking ETF made little sense (it’s like investing in REITs but they don’t pay you yield) and probably limited some of potential inflows to the ETFs (<2% of ETH supply vs. Bitcoin ETFs which now hold >5% of bitcoin supply); Lido is well-positioned to capture the institutional flows given its track record, and it’ll be a great awareness booster for Lido as a project too. As for 2 (LDO alignment), increasing LDO alignment ($LDO) is probably the single best way to increase awareness and engagement, which has largely been missing this cycle.

1 Like
6

(On-chain Voting) Vote #181
Voted: Yes
Rationale: all the proposed changes have either been ratified by Snapshot (Item 1), or are administrative in nature (Items 2,3) and necessary for operations of the LidoDAO. I’ve cross-checked the proposed parameter changes against the contract - again, contributors’ guide was very helpful.

The proposal did not reach quorum, but I’ll vote with the same rationale in a future re-vote.

1 Like