Pol Lanski Delegate Thread

[Lanski]

July votes are here:

CSM v2 Final Rollout

Forum post here

Vote: For

Rationale:

It is no surprise to anyone that has read any of my previous votes that I’m a great fan of CSM. This is an upgrade that, among others, tries to address my previous concern by introducing the Identified Community Stakers (ICS) and different reward curves.

@Lanski

I think after the Early Access phase is over, a significant part of the module’s allocation will be captured by big players. Even if this happens, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, as CSM is the first of the modules that foster decentralization and it has shown the way (and the code!), effectively providing the template for other modules that want to help decentralize the validator set and create a validator market as per GOOSE-2.

I want MORE CSM!

Triggerable Withdrawals Framework in the Lido Protocol

Forum post here

Vote: For

Rationale:

This is quite an important framework for the reasons better explained by Raman:

@Raman_Siamionau

Previously, stakers had to rely on the goodwill of Node Operators - either to pre-sign an exit message or to agree to process it in the future. This limitation is now removed: any party with access to a validator’s withdrawal credentials can initiate its exit directly via the Execution Layer

The risk parameters have been well thought out: TW limits - HackMD

Vote #190

Vote: Yes

Rationale:

After verifying the transaction (thanks Governance team for the verification guide) - all is good .