April votes are here!
Extend Delegate Incentivization Program through 2025
Forum post here
Vote: For
Rationale:
Disclaimer: As a delegate that is elegible to the incentivization program myself, I have benefited from this program, and my delegations as of now would make me elegible for the round that is being voted on.
Personally, I feel like I interact on the governance forums with other incentivized delegates a lot, which speaks to the success of the program. I see it as a very positive evolution to lower the barrier for incentivization to 1M delegated LDO, as there are other very active delegate participants that could benefit from this.
In the words of @jen: In Q4 2024, quorum was reached faster and more reliably, with stronger early participation and more consistent delegate engagement.
To me, the program remains essential at this stage of the DAO’s development. It sustains quorum and raises the quality of discussion.
Lido Alliance application: Twyne
Forum post here
Vote: For
Rationale:
The Lido Alliance’s purpose is to find alignment with projects that contribute to the lido ecosystem and move Lido forward.
Twyne’s credit delegation model enable more products to be built on stETH, hence supporting GOOSE-2’s objective of Product to Product Line, specifically for stETH and leverage seekers.
It’s always hard to judge projects at an early stage, but the team seems solid, the connections in the space are enablers to make it work (Euler incubated them), and the risk is small, considering that the ask to Lido is endorsement, integration assistance, promotional support, and technical resources for testing would accelerate development and enhance operational efficiency.
The counterpart is:
- 10% of Twyne’s token supply subject to a 1 year cliff and 2 years vesting
- 50% revenue share on stETH pools where revenue share for Lido Alliance is primarily used for incentives and liquidity on Twyne
To me, it is clear that it’s a win-win situation where we can be creating value, accelerate their product and GTM, and benefit in kind and in GOOSE-2 accomplishment.
For!
CSM: stakeShareLimit and keyRemovalCharge parameters adjustment
Forum post here
Vote: For
Rationale:
You all know how much of a fan of the CSM I am, because of the tremendous benefits to infrastructure decentralization of the validator set and the permissionless aspect of it, while remaining its biggest critic regarding accumulation of keys by not-so-decentralized actors (because of the permissionless aspect of it too!).
Increasing from 2 to 3% is conservative, specially taking into account the conditions (SDVTM full and Pier One receiving 1000 validators) so, to me, this is kind of a very slow progress for CSM. If anything, I’d like to see more aggressive expansion of the CSM!
That said, I know the CSM team is working on new updates that will make further expansion safer and address the points regarding centralized infra providers “hogging” keys, namely the extensions system that will require users to prove they are somewhat decentralized to receive reward multipliers. Very excited for that.
Increasing LOL Easy Track Limits to align with Grant Requests
Forum post here
Vote: For
Rationale:
I see this proposal as part of the continuous efforts to improve operational efficiency.
Important to note this comment:
On-chain vote 185
Verification guide here
Vote: Yes
Rationale:
I must thank tremendously the DAO ops team for the verification guide and the enormous effort it requires to explain, link, and make it simpler to verify that the params are the correct ones.
Aragon contracts like these are notoriously tricky to follow around (I’d know, we use ACL and others in our decentralized Dappstore at Dappnode), so it is much appreciated.
Again, on-chain votes are implementations of previously approved votes, in this case Ensuring Compatibility with Ethereum’s Pectra Fork.