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:
- Ending the Early Access phase and going into full permissionless mode, meaning everyone will be able to participate.
- 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:
-
A “bridge” budget for 3 mo and
11M DAIfor 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. -
The second EGG, for 6mo and for a
8.5M DAIwould be to incentivize liquidity and experiment and research on this topic. Best-before date: 2025/06/30 -
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: