Pol Lanski Delegate Thread

Delegate Platform
1

Delegate information:

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Public Acceptance: I, Pol Lanski, accept the Lido DAO delegate Сode of Сonduct (link) and Aligned with Lido’s Vibe (Purpose, Mission, Vision)

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.
7 Likes
2

Happy to be able to contribute with the decision rationales of my first 3 snapshot proposals:

1. Increase the Proposal Threshold for Snapshot

Vote: Do Nothing

Rationale:

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:

2. Change Easy Track limits for PML & ATC

Vote: Support the Change

Rationale:

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.

3. Lido Community Staking Module Mainnet Release Setup

Vote: Approve CSM mainnet release

Rationale:

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:

image
image1210×1000 119 KB

Disclosures:

  1. Dappnode, has gotten a grant to maximize the reach and the ease of use of the module among Home Operators.
  2. I believe in CSM and am committed to its operations too, by virtue of being a part of the CSM Committee
  3. 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.
7 Likes
3

1. Vote #179

  1. 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.

  2. Add Easy Track setup for funding the Lido Alliance Operational Multisig following the Lido DAO Snapshot decision. Item 6.

Vote: Yes (vote)

Rationale:

This is a double proposal.
Number 1 has been discussed here and is non-contentious as the legacy oracle gives wildly unaccurate information:

The deployment is delicate but has been audited by two firms: MixBytes and Ackee Blockchain .

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?

2 Likes
4

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 :sweat_smile:

5 Likes
5

Makes a lot of sense! Thanks for the clarification :slight_smile:

6

1. Should the Lido DAO recognize the wstETH bridge endpoints on Zircuit as canonical?

Forum post here

Vote: Recognise

Rationale:

No reason to not recognise support for another L2.
Audit / deployment verification is available.

2. Integrate CSM into the Decentralized Validator Vault

Forum post here

Vote: Yes, vote for the integration

Rationale:

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.

4 Likes
7

1. Lido Alliance application: Bolt

Forum post here

Vote: Onboard Bolt to Lido Alliance

Rationale:

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.

4 Likes
8

Vote #180

  1. 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.
  2. Add Community Staking Module to the Staking Router. CSM follows the approved LIP-26 design and Mainnet Release Setup. Items 20-26.

Vote: Yes (vote)

Rationale:

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.

Details on the upgrade can be found here:

4 Likes
9

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

2 Likes
10

It was really great to spend some time with Lido contributors and other delegates during Devcon week, and participate at Lido Connect. Establishing personal relations of trust makes communication easier so problem solving, opinion sharing, and working together becomes easier.

Now it’s time for a vote-athlon!

1. Establishing the Network Expansion Committee

Forum post here

Vote: Approve NEC

Rationale:

This is an evolution of the already existing NEW (Network Expansion Workgroup) that aims to reduce governance overhead after a track record of having all their governance proposals accepted.

The team has proven solid and is now experienced in these types of deployments, and I see no reason to burden them with extra steps.

There is one caveat that I would like to see adopted as part of the appeal/dispute process. Currently a message needs to be signed by EOAs with 100k to stop the automatic acceptance. Since the DAO Ops team is working very hard on making governance more streamlined and easy, I’d like to see delegates having their delegations recognised. Imagine this: a LDO holder delegates their snapshot and onchain voting power to a delegate, but is still expected to keep an eye on the NEC forum posts? Wouldn’t it make sense that their voting weight is also delegated for such matters? My response here.

2. Should Pier Two continue in the Curated Module Set following the acquisition of Numic?, 3. Should Alchemy continue in SDVT and LoP following the acquisition of Bware Labs? and 4. Should Nansen continue in SDVT following the acquisition of Stakewithus?

Forum posts here, [here]Bware Labs has been acquired by Alchemy - #3 by Sven) and here

Vote: For for the 3 of them

Rationale

We are going to see more acquisitions and more consolidation in the space. Dwindling profit margins, lack of clarity on the future of key aspects of the staking mechanisms - including issuance! - are reshaping the industry.

The analysis done by the Lido Node Operator Sub-Governance Group (LNOSG) here makes me vote confidently for the For option, and I’d like to see them repeat this work for future consolidations of operations.

5. Reevaluation of Lido on Polygon state

Forum post here

Vote: Sunset Lido on Polygon

Rationale

While it is sad to let go of projects, it is not really contentious. This proposal is put forth by ShardLabs, who have been driving the project, and they support the sunsetting of the project.
The economics of it are atrocious and Polygon hasn’t really picked up as it seemed it could. I think it was the right move to try, and it is the right move to shut it down now.

6. GOOSE 2024 cycle: Lido DAO goals for 2025

Forum post here

Vote: Adopt Goals

Rationale:

Hasu’s were the only GOOSE goals that were proposed. I see that as negative. Hasu has a keen strategic eye, and I think his analysis is informed and calibrated. But competition and other views would be welcome. For next year I would like to maybe put together a team to put forth another strategic view of the market conditions, or at least to see more action by other keen Lido contributors.

  1. Strengthen LDO’s Role in Governance. Align incentives with Lido’s long-term success, promoting stability and sustainability for the protocol.
  • LDO is currently a governance token without value accrual that provides access to governing a big chunk of Ethereum’s stake. Aiming for value accrual could have the consequence of turning LDO into a blue chip, with long term holders potentially getting more involved in Governance as it impacts their rev streams too. Distribution of LDO will become key.
  1. Establish an Open Market for Validators. Align validator rewards with contributions toward Lido’s mission.
  • That is a bet. I think it could be a trojan horse that hurts the decentralization of the validator set, or more precisely, the allocated amounts to the different typologies of validators. But I trust the Lido contributors to find the right formula to implement this goal in a way that pushes the overall Lido mission: make staking simple, secure, and decentralized. Simplicity and decentralization might suffer here.
  1. Expand stETH’s Ecosystem with a Diverse Product Line. Aim to meet the varied needs of Ethereum stakers and reignite adoption.
  • It is kind of linked to the above, but broader. I agree with the analysis that there is a huge variety of offers for yield based on Ethereum’s inflation rewards plus on-top protocol rewards, and playing this game could be very beneficial, in the same way Procter & Gamble and other FMCG companies own the competition of their best products.

LGTM, with the caveats above, and will revisit this post often.

7. On-chain vote #181

On-chain votes reflect decisions already taken by vote. Some snapshot, some by the relevant committee.

  1. Change Easy Track limits for PML and ATC following the Snapshot decision. Reduce the PML limit from 6M to 4M, and increase the ATC limit from 1.5M to 7M in USDC/USDT/DAI per quarter to reflect operational changes.
  2. Increase the Lido Stonks stETH limit to 12,000 stETH and reset spent amount, as per the Treasury Management Committee’s decision to achieve TMC-1. Resetting spent amount will allow swapping up to 12,000 stETH in 2024, and the limit will be reset again on January 1, 2025, as originally scheduled.
  3. Update the reward address for Node Operator ID 16 (Simply Staking), as requested on the forum.

I see no problems with these as they have been previously discussed, or the change on the Node Operator ID is standard procedure.

2 Likes
11

After engaging in another round of discussions in the forum, I feel we’re getting into a rhythm where delegates are being listened to and more actively participating in shaping the proposals.

I’ll include links to the relevant discussions when available.

1. CSM: Enable Permissionless Phase and Increase the Share Limit

Forum post here

Vote: For

Rationale:

The continuation and closing of the initial deployment stage of the CSM saga. This culminates years of work. I’ve discussed this with Eugene years ago, at one ETHCC, for the first time, and it now becomes permissionless. Very proud of what the CSM team has achieved.

Specifically, this proposal suggests:

  1. Ending the Early Access phase and going into full permissionless mode, meaning everyone will be able to participate.
  2. Increase the share of Lido Protocol ETH allocated to CSM from 1% to 2%.

This means open season for everyone to participate to CSM, plus more ETH flowing into the module. Time to do so.

I have voiced my concerns that full permissionlessness could attract big players / whales / institutional, as it provides a way to leverage ETH better than solo staking. I think this is one of the limitations of the CSM. If it indeed gets captured, another module can be spun up, or another vote for changing the conditions for CSM to make it truly “Community” - if it had stopped being so- could be had. Forward with CSM!

2. Lido Alliance Grant Proposal

Forum post here

Vote: For

Rationale:

The Lido Alliance has onboarded 3 projects so far, Drop, Mellow and Bolt. I am on the fence with Drop, but I think Mellow and Bolt have a very direct link on the ecosystem, and have existing products (see Mellow’s Decentralized Validator Vault) or future products that will be key in the future of Ethereum and Staking, as it’s the case of Bolt’s preconf protocol.
Based on these results, I am keen on keeping the Lido Alliance alive and to onboard more projects onto it.

3. [EGG] Multi-EGG Continuity Grant Funding

Forum post here

Vote: For

Rationale:

This proposal combines 3 main funding verticals:

  1. A “bridge” budget for 3 mo and 11M DAI for Governance and CSM teams to deliver on Dual Governance and on the permissionless CSM. These are considered GOOSE (v1) goals and not yet GOOSEv2, which was just approved by the DAO - I voted for them. Hence, the budget will last 3m and another EGG to deliver on the GOOSEv2 can be expected to be proposed by Pool Maintenance and Argos and RCC, the structures that are involved in the delivery.
    “A bridge budget for old objectives?!” I hear you say. Fret not, this is most likely not even extra money, as st2024v2, the previous EGG tackling these goals, is underspent. While we don’t know the final numbers of st2014v2, it is likely that the final cost will be what was approved without the bridge budget, or within acceptable parametres.

  2. The second EGG, for 6mo and for a 8.5M DAI would be to incentivize liquidity and experiment and research on this topic. Best-before date: 2025/06/30

  3. 3rd EGG, for the whole 2025 would cover the Bug Bounty program and budget 2M DAI. They will be budgeted, but only drawn in case of a payout event.

TBH, most of my time analysing this proposal was spent trying to understand the relationship between 1. Pool Maintenance Labs Ltd, 2. Argo Technology Consulting Ltd and 3. the RCC (Resourcing and Compensation Committee); and figuring out that it was indeed an extension on st2014v2 for the 3 mo piece.

A lot of good discussion was had on making this more obvious because transparency means clarity too, as a lot can be hidden through obfuscation (although I don’t believe this situation was created on purpose). I asked for “deliverable” transparency and not only “economic” transparency, which @steakhouse provides, although it’s more of a long term goal to facilitate these discussions and make them more agile.

4. Extend On-Chain Voting Duration

Forum post here

Vote: Extend duration to 3+2 days

Rationale:

My position is captured on the forum thread discussing the initiative:

5. Update Lido on Ethereum Standard Node Operator Protocol - Validator Exits

Forum post here

Vote: For

Rationale:

Here’s the full policy, but I really like the side-by-side comparison found here.

The fact of the matter is the current policy does not take CSM nor SDVTM into account, and a new update is needed.

As a CSM NO myself AND a Lido Delegate, I feel these policies make sense and are written in a way that can be extended with future modules.

6. On-chain vote #182

Vote: Yes

Rationale:

This is a re-run of the previous vote that failed to reach quorum. My rationale is the same, quoted below:

1 Like
12

This is really great and detailed commentary, @Lanski !

1 Like