Lido V3 — Design & Implementation Proposal
We voted Yes: The Lido v3 proposal brings some really interesting shifts to the protocol’s architecture, and we think the emphasis on modularity is particularly worth highlighting. Several commenters in that thread have pointed out how the separation of responsibilities—such as validators, withdrawal queues, and staking routers—could make the system more resilient and adaptable over time. That kind of layered design not only helps with scaling but also makes it easier to evolve specific parts of the protocol without requiring a disruptive overhaul of everything at once. In decentralized systems, where upgrades can be tricky to coordinate, that flexibility is a real strength.
Also by making staking routes and modules more customizable, Lido opens up space for more diverse participation and experimentation. But with that comes the challenge of ensuring the DAO can still steer effectively without being overwhelmed by too many proposals or fragmented decision-making. A good analogy might be urban planning: giving neighborhoods more autonomy can create vibrancy and resilience, but you still need some central coordination to keep the whole city functioning smoothly. It’ll be fascinating to see how Lido v3 strikes that balance in practice.
NEST - Network Economic Support Tokenomics
We voted Yes: What stood out is the intention to create a clear alignment between Lido and an emerging project in its early stages. Several of the initial responses in the thread make good points about how tokenomics can either reinforce or weaken this kind of partnership. On the positive side, allocating support early can foster collaboration and help bootstrap Nest’s growth, which in turn could expand the broader staking ecosystem. It’s somewhat similar to how venture investments in adjacent technologies can create synergies that pay off for both sides if the alignment is strong. Another layer of the conversation is governance optics. Community members are understandably sensitive to how treasury resources are used, especially when it involves supporting external projects. Even if the collaboration makes sense on paper, there’s always a need to demonstrate how it benefits Lido’s stakers and long-term mission. Framing the support as part of a broader strategy, whether it’s diversification, ecosystem building, or resilience, could help win broader buy-in. Otherwise, it risks being perceived as favoritism or mission drift. Clear communication and measurable outcomes will probably be just as important as the technical or financial details of the proposal itself.
Establish the stVaults Committee
We voted Yes: We think the stVaults Committee proposal is an important step for scaling responsibly. A few comments in the thread highlight the complexity of managing vault strategies, especially as the range of options expands. Having a dedicated committee to evaluate, monitor, and adjust those vaults could provide the consistency and accountability that’s hard to achieve when responsibilities are spread too thinly. In many ways, this mirrors how investment committees function in traditional finance, ensuring there’s both expertise and a structured process behind capital allocation.
Vote #192
We voted For: We are in favor of this operational & technical vote to Upgrade to CSM v2 and increase CSM stake share limit from 3% to 5%, as per prior Snapshots. Also agree with other operational decisions.