DVT & DVV Incentive Allocation Changes
We voted For: We like the incentive allocation changes and believe concerns were addressed appropriately. More in depth thoughts here: Proposal: DVT & DVV Incentive Allocation Changes - #25 by PGov
Rewards Share Committee Reform
We voted For: We’re in favor because it modernizes the Rewards Share Committee’s mandate to match the DAO’s current operating reality. Operationally, the design is sensible separation-of-duties: the stVaults Committee manages/approves stVaults Rewards Share decisions, while the Rewards Share Committee handles treasury drawdowns and disbursements (i.e., execution). On NO rebates, it’s explicitly framed as a stopgap operational function until CMv2 removes the technical limitation, exactly the kind of bridge responsibility that prevents governance decisions from getting stuck in implementation limbo.
Also, the governance hygiene improvements are a net positive: a smaller signer set and lower quorum (moving from 4/8 to 3/5) should reduce operational friction while preserving multisig safety, and the explicit annual budget inclusion via yearly EGG proposals plus regular reporting via the Lido Ecosystem Foundation creates clearer accountability loops.
We voted For: We are in favor of these operational & technical vote implementations.