Name: Pol Lanski
Address: lanski.eth / 0xB6647e02AE6Dd74137cB80b1C24333852E4AF890
Forum: @Lanski
Twitter: Pol_Lanski
Languages: Contact me in English, Spanish, French, Catalan
Introduction
I’m the Project Lead at Dappnode and member of the builder collective dOrg.
I’ve been in blockchain since I mined dogecoin in 2014 and full time since 2019, working for the past 5 years on creating a decentralized infrastructure network of node runners via Dappnode. My expertise is in staking, home node operations / solo staking, mechanism design, infrastructure and decentralization.
Motivation
Lido is an extremely important project for Ethereum. Lido’s focus, vision and execution has turned it into the single biggest controller of staked ETH. It’s easy to see how there are many decisions, by action or inaction, that are possible for Lido to take, that will shape both projects and protocol.
Decentralized Governance is powerful, and can dangerous: governance attacks are happening due to plain token voting, unchecked processes and community apathy. Lido’s delegation approach is an important step to ensure that such an important project for Ethereum is governed properly while still following DAO principles.
Considering my mission to protect and shape Ethereum to the best of my abilities, and the possibility of helping Lido take the right paths, and that the path of Lido is deeply entrenched with Ethereum’s future, I feel deeply compelled to give my best to steer Lido according to what I believe are the right values (see next section).
Values and Decision-Making Approach (Core Values, Decision-Making Process)
Lido’s Vibe (Purpose, Mission, and Vision) asserts that Lido pursues the decentralization of Ethereum (understood as the coordination and value layer of the internet) by making staking simple, secure, and decentralized. This Vibe perfectly aligns with my values and the work I’ve been dedicated to for the past five years.
Decentralization focus Decentralization is a key component of what I value about Ethereum. But, what do I mean with Decentralization?
Decentralization is a spectrum where different desirable properties emerge. Such properties are resilience to government capture, boycott, censorship, zero-day exploits, power grid failures and other geographically bounded events… It is these properties which turn Ethereum into a desirable platform for running unstoppable applications (or becoming the co-ordination and value layer of the internet, as written in the Vibe)
Balancing Stakeholder Interests: When the interests of different stakeholders conflict, I will always anchor my decisions in Lido’s Vibe, which aligns with the broader mission of Ethereum’s decentralization. I believe that decisions should benefit both Lido and the Ethereum ecosystem as a whole. For example, if a proposal offers short-term gains for one group but could harm the long-term decentralization of Ethereum, I would lean towards a decision that prioritizes long-term, sustainable decentralization, ensuring that Lido remains aligned with its core mission. Should the mission change, I would consider my mandate as changed too and I would have to reevaluate whether I am the most appropriate person to pursue it and defend it.
Leveraging Expertise in Staking and Infrastructure: Given my expertise in staking and decentralized infrastructure, I am well-positioned to contribute to Lido’s roadmap. I consult and draw from teams, facilitate strategic partnerships, and provide in-depth analysis of proposals related to staking and infrastructure. My experience with Dappnode in building a decentralized network of node runners will be invaluable in helping Lido become a stronger decentralizing force for Ethereum. I am committed to using this expertise to ensure that Lido’s infrastructure and governance practices contribute to a more robust and decentralized Ethereum ecosystem.
Disclosures:
I am the project lead at Dappnode, who has received funding from LEGO grants. I hold a very small amount of Diva and BSN tokens. I am also a delegate for ShutterDAO, where I am known for voting against and being very vocal with decisions that I don’t believe have the best outcome for Shutter while being open to discussion and to research independently.
Disclaimer:
By delegating to me, Lanski, you acknowledge and agree to the following:
I do not control or represent the DAO or the LIDO project and do not assume any responsibility or liability for the DAO’s or LIDO’s actions or decisions.
I do not take over any responsibilities of the DAO or the LIDO project, and my participation is limited to the role of a delegate.
I am not bound by any particular opinion when voting. Instead, I will vote in a manner that I believe is in the best interest of the LIDO project.
By delegating your vote to me, you grant me the freedom to vote at my discretion with your delegation, which means you have no right to restrict me in forming my opinions or in how I cast my votes.
I disclaim any liability for any loss, damages, or claims arising from your delegation of votes to me, including but not limited to, unfavorable decisions of the DAO, lack of development of the LIDO project, or other unfavorable or unforeseen circumstances. By delegating votes to me, you fully understand and accept the risks associated with interacting with decentralized smart contracts.
Increasing the vote to 5k, 10k or 15k LDO would be a naive and ineffective way to treat the spam proposals problem.
Analysing the spammers addresses reveals that they are well funded and could acquire LDO exclusively to post a proposal and sell them after at very little economic risk and cost.
Moreover, there seems to be an existing agreement with Snapshot to tackle such issues.
Full post in the proposal discussion thread:
This proposal concerns reflecting the expenses of the IRL organisations that support Lido as Core Contributors, PML (Pool Maintenance Labs Ltd.) and ATC (Argo Technology Consulting Ltd).
While by no means the budgeting and expenditure is perfect, it never is in any organisation tackling complex challenges, and we have much less transparency and oversight in traditional companies. PML : to decrease from 6m per quarter to 4m USDC/USDT/DAI per quarter ATC : to increase from 1,5m per quarter to 7m USDC/USDT/DAI per quarter
The transparency provided by @steakhouse and the finance team, the public list of multisigs and signers and the results since the creation of this mechanism in 2022 offer no contentious vote to approve the proposal.
Finally! I am so excited for this one! I have been in touch with the team developing the CSM for a long time and I have exchanged impressions.
This is a great step in the direction of the Lido Vibes (Mission, Vision and Purpose).
Specifically, the Purpose is defined as: “Keep Ethereum decentralized, accessible to all, and resistant to censorship”.
Node Operators are a key component of such decentralization, and Home Operators bring a layer of resilience that professional operators cannot bring. CSM is an extremely worthy endeavour that has deep considerations to attractiveness to Home Stakers and security for Lido depositors.
It is worth mentioning that is the first proposal to take action on Hasu’s GOOSE submission, specifically the sub goal of permissionless entry of Goal 2:
Dappnode, has gotten a grant to maximize the reach and the ease of use of the module among Home Operators.
I believe in CSM and am committed to its operations too, by virtue of being a part of the CSM Committee
We sell a Lido-branded Dappnode machine with the goal to bring a plug-and-play solution for non-technical users to be able to run CSM and decentralize Lido’s Node Operator Set.
Upgrade wstETH on Optimism bridge endpoints to enable rebasable stETH on Optimism alongside wstETH. Following Snapshot vote and proposed action plan. Solution audited by MixBytes and Ackee Blockchain. Items 1-5.
Add Easy Track setup for funding the Lido Alliance Operational Multisig following the Lido DAO Snapshot decision. Item 6.
Number 2 is also pretty non-contentious as it is the onchain continuation of the snapshot vote here
To imbue myself with the background, I have reviewed the discussion for this first snapshot vote here and what was already a very clear proposal becomes very transparent thanks to @Irina_everstake and @Tane 's thorough questions. Thanks to both.
Note:
I have seen that it is customary to add different on-chain actions into one proposal, @kadmil and @Jenya_K .
Coming from a country with a shitty democracy that uses “bundling different laws” into a single vote in order to pass conflictive laws, I can see how this could happen in the future.
Nothing contentious on this vote, so not a problem - but maybe this is a discussion that has been had before - what is the logic for this bundling?
Great question! This initiative was proposed to simplify the user flow.
The main rule here is that everything combined in a single on-chain vote has already been approved by DAO on Snapshot individually. The DAO Operations doesn’t bundle proposals that haven’t passed Snapshot with those that have.
I don’t see a big risk here. I’d expect a conservative approach for Lido DAO on-chain votes—voting against or abstain a proposal if the voter only partially agrees with it and provides feedback. But of course, I could be wrong. Also, have some shitty democracy experience in my life
As someone who is following the Home Staker community closely, I see lots of examples of home stakers wanting to participate in CSM via DVT, as it protects them from downtime and makes it more likely their validators will remain above the performance threshold - at the non-negligible cost of human coordination (we need better tools to coordinate DVT setups, but that’s a whole other can of worms)
There is another proposal up for vote in Snapshot, which I am investigating to really form an opinion. Preconfirmations and ePBS are not a simple topic and have implications on how Ethereum will evolve.
I take very seriously the possibility of centralization on Ethereum, and particularly off-protocol systems that side-track the working assumptions of Ethereum.
I’ve gone into a rabbit hole of preconfirmations and they have potential to improve certain UX and potential censorship issues on chain.
My role is to defend the decentralization of Ethereum, but not to defend the current state of Ethereum as an immovable thing. Changes must be compatible with the idea of keeping Ethereum decentralized in order to benefit from the emerging properties of decentralized systems: redundancy, resilience, censorship resistance…
There are pre-confirmation designs that seem to be able to respect these principles. Currently Bolt has solved the problem of connecting users with block proposers with a centralized endpoint. I believe this is not OK for a final design.
That said, I believe Bolt has the chops to overcome this problem in other ways and even myself am no stranger to “Decentralize till it hurts, centralize until it works, then decentralize again”, a motto those who know me have heard me say countless times.
Hence, I vote yes for onboarding Bolt to Lido Alliance even though I have voiced my concerns and reserve the right to vote negatively down the line should Bolt’s protocol for preconfirmations failed to address these hurdles in the future.
Staking Router and related contracts upgrade following the DAO-approved LIP-25: Staking Router 2.0 and LIP-23: Negative rebase sanity check with a pluggable second opinion designs. Items 1-19.
Add Community Staking Module to the Staking Router. CSM follows the approved LIP-26 design and Mainnet Release Setup. Items 20-26.
For 1, this is the on-chain confirmation of the expected upgrade of the staking router.
For 2, this marks the addition of the new module to the staking router: the much expected and a masses favourite: Community Staking Module!
Both were previously approved and I support them wholeheartedly.
Due to the fact that ens domains can change the underlying address, I am confirming that the address that I will use as a delegate is: 0xB6647e02AE6Dd74137cB80b1C24333852E4AF890
