# Pol Lanski Delegate Thread

**URL:** <https://research.lido.fi/t/pol-lanski-delegate-thread/8155>\
**Category:** Delegate Platform\
**Created:** [August 19, 2024, 2:20pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/pol-lanski-delegate-thread/8155 "2024-08-19T14:20:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Lanski](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/lanski/32/4846_2.png) [@Lanski](https://research.lido.fi/u/Lanski)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2024, 5:10pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/pol-lanski-delegate-thread/8155/3 "2024-10-09T17:10:19Z")

</div>

## 1. [Vote #179](https://vote.lido.fi/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](https://etherscan.io/tx/0xcbc08b713ca54abb5a59a001cb6d5f70c3eca83edf7071345181da1bc19dee01))

### Rationale:

This is a double proposal.  
**Number 1** has been discussed [here](https://research.lido.fi/t/steth-on-optimism-upgrade-announcement-and-action-plan/8474) and is non-contentious as the legacy oracle gives wildly unaccurate information:

> [@stETH on Optimism upgrade announcement and action plan](https://research.lido.fi/t/steth-on-optimism-upgrade-announcement-and-action-plan/8474/3):
>
> - **APR using the old formula** : Approximately **negative 34%**
> - **APR using the new formula** : Approximately **3%**

The deployment is delicate but has been audited by two firms: [MixBytes](https://github.com/lidofinance/audits/blob/main/L2/stETH-on-Optimism-2024-06-MixBytes-Audit-Report.pdf) and [Ackee Blockchain](https://github.com/lidofinance/audits/blob/main/L2/stETH-on-Optimism-2024-06-Ackee-Blockchain-Audit-report.pdf).

**Number 2** is also pretty non-contentious as it is the onchain continuation of the snapshot vote [here](https://snapshot.org/#/lido-snapshot.eth/proposal/0xa478fa5518769096eda2b7403a1d4104ca47de3102e8a9abab8640ef1b50650c)

To imbue myself with the background, I have reviewed the discussion for this first snapshot vote [here](https://research.lido.fi/t/organize-the-lido-alliance-program-as-a-lido-dao-adjacent-borg/8173) and what was already a very clear proposal becomes very transparent thanks to @irinat 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?

---

_[View the full topic](https://research.lido.fi/t/pol-lanski-delegate-thread/8155)._