Polar - Delegate Thread

[polar]

Introduction: Hi there, most of you probably know me as polar, though my real name is Paul Dylan-Ennis. I am an academic with a research specialism in Ethereum protocol governance. I have written a book, The Absolute Essentials of Ethereum and a number of academic articles on Ethereum and Bitcoin culture. I teach the first Ethereum-only module at University level, called The Ethereum Ecosystem. However, most of you probably know me as the author of a number of CoinDesk Opinion columns on Ethereum culture and values.

Ethereum address/ENS: 0x1f76a6Bf03429480472B3695E08689219cE15ED6

Motivation: Of all the DAOs in the Ethereum ecosystem, my sense is that Lido DAO is the one that needs the most careful consideration of its proposals given the large amount of ETH staked with the protocol. In recent years, we have seen a certain professionalism of the DAO delegate role that I think has likely helped in terms of efficiency and participation. However, in this particular case, I believe it is important to be a delegate with few obligations elsewhere (I am a delegate for zkSync, but nowhere else). While I can’t promise you the polished documentation provided by professional DAO delegate operations, I can promise you my careful, cautious and well-researched assessment of proposals. I will bring to bear my academic mindset to consider proposals not just in terms of immediate concerns, but with Lido’s philosophy and Ethereum’s culture and history in mind. I also hope to use my experiences to teach Lido as an exemplary DAO in the classroom.

Values and Decision-Making Approach: My view is that Ethereum culture is ultimately undergirded by a commitment to cypherpunk values, which I consider to be decentralisation, permissionlessness, censorship resistance and credible neutrality. I consider these to be the lines that demarcate what is acceptable or not when it comes to Ethereum’s long term vision and that I have through my work a long history of defending their centrality. I will use these principles as a conceptual map in analysing any proposals and making decisions. I will always ensure my reasoning is clearly explained and contextualised and ensure that they are made in light of the ideas and not personalised or subjective. I believe this will be possible because as an academic I am afforded a certain freedom in terms of time to consider and think about these proposals.

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

Disclosures: None. I am an academic and do not work for any companies, protocols or projects.

Waiver of Liability:

By delegating to me, Paul Dylan-Ennis, you acknowledge and agree to the following:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 .
5. 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.
6. All my activities and the relationship with you are exclusively subject to Irish laws and Irish courts.

[kadmil]

Weee, great to see your proposal ser!

[vsh]

Hey! Really enjoyed The Absolute Essentials of Ethereum, happy to see you here.

[polar]

Thanks guys, fingers crossed!

[polar]

Hi folks,

I made three votes today (04/10/24). None of which are controversial and therefore the post will be relatively short.

The first regards the Lido Community Staking Module Mainnet Release Setup: (Snapshot). Discussion.

I’ve voted to approve the CSM Mainnet Release Setup. There is a previous accepted vote about CSM itself and therefore in this case I decided to review the original post just to check for any recent objections about the Setup that might be cause for concern, but did not encounter any.

Next is Change Easy Track limits for PML & ATC: (Snapshot). Discussion.

The nuts and bolts:
Lowering the PML limit from 6M to 4M USDC/USDT/DAI per quarter
Increasing the ATC limit from 1.5M to 7M USDC/USDT/DAI per quarter

This seems sensible to me and therefore I voted to approve. An update on limits that have not changed since 2022 and need to be updated. I also note no objections in the discussion.

Finally a slightly different one. Increase the Proposal Threshold for Snapshot: (Snapshot). Discussion.

This is by no means a misguided proposal. The limit does seem to be quite small. However, the problem does not appear to be pressing or common, as mentioned by numerous community members. In cases like this I vote with caution and choose Do Nothing.

[polar]

Voted yes to Vote 179.

Furst we have the onchain vote for the already approved Snapshot vote. With original discussion to Upgrade wstETH on Optimism to enable rebasable stETH here.

I want to note the contributors provided a useful ‘How to check the vote’ document. This is not something I have seen at many DAOs and is extremely useful.

I reviewed the MixBytes report which raises nothing of undue concern.

Second, an Easy Track setup for funding the Lido Alliance Operational Multisig following the Lido DAO Snapshot decision. Item 6. Related to the Organize the Lido Alliance Program as a Lido-DAO-Adjacent BORG. I see no issue here. The Lido Alliance Program / BORG has strong support and this is an operational necessity.

[polar]

Some Snapshot votes.

First up is Integrate CSM into the Decentralized Validator Vault. This is an easy one and I voted for integration. I am a big fan of Mellow’s DVV and it is natural to me that the CSM would be integrated here. The process looks relatively uncomplicated with no onchain elements, but instead cross-team collab, which is to its credit in terms of getting this moving. More philosophically, this contributes to ongoing efforts to decentralise the Node Operator set. All very positive and I commend the efforts of everyone here.

Second is Onboard bolt to the Lido Alliance. Preconfs are part of reGOOSE and Bolt, from what I have read so far, appear to be a Roadmap-savvy organisation with an Ethereum-aligned mindset and their offerings look like they will not be difficult to integrate on the Lido end. The respective benefits to each side (token allocation to Lido; brand awareness to Bolt) are fair and balanced. A good partnership I am sure.

Finally I voted Recognise for Should the Lido DAO recognize the wstETH bridge endpoints on Zircuit as canonical? However, I do wish to comment that this was after careful consideration about whether to abstain from voting (not a given option, but simply not voting). The reason is the discussion thread is very light in terms of engagement, with really on one response. It would be useful if those from Lido working on these more matters could chime in, even if its just a cursory sign off. The response we do have from @TheDZhon is extremely helpful and my own snooping around Zircuit reveals nothing that would concern me. So this is not about them, so much as we probably just need a few more eyes on these generally.

[Jerod]

Hi! I really liked The Absolute Essentials of Ethereum, glad to see you here

[polar]

Thank you @Jerod That is awesome to hear!

[Jerod]

Thanks

Пт, 18 окт. 2024 г. в 16:25, polar via Lido Governance <[email protected]>:

[polar]

Vote 180. I voted yes. This is a long-ish post, so apologies if there are some minor errors. I’ll clean it up later.

This is a complicated vote to get through albeit one I was able to prepare in advance for. The big picture is clear and easy to back:

Release the Community Staking Module (CSM) for permissionless staking and upgrade the Staking Router to ensure compatibility with CSM and future modules, improving system efficiency.

Therefore the vote here is really about implementation and audits. I based my decision primarily on this post by @Maksim_Kuraian The vote as I see it is about three Snapshot-approved LIPs (23, 25, 26), so we can therefore assume support among the Lido DAO.

There’s three objectives:

• Upgrade the Staking Router and related contracts.
• Upgrade the Accounting Oracle sanity checker.
• Add the Community Staking Module (CSM).

The LIPs capture the design. Notably these have been successfully tested on Holesky testnet.

Staking Router and related contracts upgrade following the DAO-approved LIP-25: Staking Router 2.0.

Here I noted that for LIP-25 there was not much discussion to the forum post (which I take as a positive indication of non-controversy). I particular admire the Deposit Security Module (DSM) change to minimise governance approval. And overall commend the efforts of the team to focus so closely on permissionless staking and security.

Post-Snapshot there are audits from Ackee and MixBytes. Notably there are no critical or high issues found and I note medium and below are either fixed or acknowledged.

LIP-23: Negative rebase sanity check with a pluggable second opinion following the DAO-approved Snapshot vote.

In a similar vein I also there is not a huge amount of discussion about this on the forum. But the rationale is quite clear, the current sanity check is not quite adequate, we need to improve it and here is the solution. I can see the reason why it is included in this specific vote here where it is stated that ‘the Sanity Checker contract needs to be updated in conjunction with the Staking Router update.’ The audits found mostly minor issues.

Add Community Staking Module

This is an easy one to back because I believe it is key to Lido’s Purpose to ‘Keep Ethereum decentralized, accessible to all, and resistant to censorship.’ I believe existentially this is a vision much closer to what Lido DAO members want for themselves. But also in terms of positive externalities it sends a clear message to the wider Ethereum community about what Lido’s intents are.

I reviewed the audits, but this is of course an extremely well-documented, long-thought through effort with many eyes on it and that shows. This is an incredible achievement!

I note this small update from MixBytes about the contractor code.

Rotate the Instadapp Oracle address

I see this as an administrative necessity. It responds to a request from Instadapp on the forums. This does seem to be a slightly late addition. I don’t think that is some major issue, but maybe worth flagging.

For the future I have noted I need to allocate more time to the voting script and will adjust accordingly.

[polar]

OK, we’ve got a few votes this week.

Snapshot votes:

Establish the Network Expansion Committee

Broadly speaking formalises the informal Network Expansion Workgroup (NEW) into the Network Expansion Committee (NEC). This appears to gain us efficiency and I appreciate the objection window for the DAO. I note an interesting post from @Lanski at the end of the thread that might be considered in the future. In favour.

Should Pier Two continue in the CSM following acquisition of Numic.

Should Alchemy continue in SDVT and LOP following acquisition of Brave Labs.

Should Nansen continue…

Three similar votes concerning acquisitions and their impacts on various
I am satisfied with the LNOSG review and am in favour.

Reevaluation on Lido on Polygon State

A valiant effort, but all indicators suggest this is an experiment that ought to be subsetted. it seems a distraction at this point and not a part of the the upcoming GOOSE cycle. In favour.

GOOSE 2024 cycle: Lido Goals for 2025

Always an important vote. I am in favour.

Goal 1: Strengthen LDO’s Role in Governance.

I read this, in effect, as a healthy LDO translates into healthy governance. I am glad to see this as goal one, as the main focus, because I notice a common trend on the forums from LDO holders who are unhappy with its performance (though recent trends suggest a more positive outlook). I am not sure exactly how LDO can be tied to protocol revenue - the fee switch is mentioned but I wonder why Uniswap went cold on it - but this should certainly be explored more, perhaps by a committee focusing on it. Philosophically speaking it is an excellent first emphasis given LDO is the key to Lido’s decentralisation.

Goal 2: Attract the Best Validator Set

To me this is perfectly logical and I have no comments except to support.

Goal 3: stETH is the most used token in the Ethereum Ecosystem

Product to product line to help Lido evolve in response to LST saturation. Institutional stakers in particular are a key customer Lido ought to be in a position to onboard given its position / advantage. This appears to be a situation Lido ought to be addresses immediately and I wonder how these discussions could even be started, but I suspect they have been ongoing elsewhere (likely with centralised providers). I am less convinced by restaking as an industry, but would not be completely dismissive. Crypto has a way of seemingly ‘overhyped’ innovations acting as the site of unexpected innovations, so I would still pay attention. Leverage is always reliable.

Horizontal it is.

Finally Vote 181:

Proposal

Change Easy Track limits for PML and ATC following the Snapshot decision (items 1 & 2).

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.

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 (items 3 & 4). 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.

Update the reward address for Node Operator ID 16 (Simply Staking), as requested on the forum (item 5).

Broadly speaking onchain ratification and implementation of previously accepted Snapshot votes. Here I mostly focused on checking whether the limits and addresses in the items listed corresponded with those proposed, but there is nothing high-level here, but more administrative and non-controversial.

[polar]

Howdy ladies and germs,

some Snapshot votes:

CSM: Enable Permissionless Phase and Increase the Share Limit

Discussion: Community Staking Module - #74 by dgusakov

The rationale seems reasonable to me and the consequence of increased permissionless is a clear positive. The proposal appears to me to be REGOOSE-aligned. I notice strong support among my fellow delegates as well. A sign of things to come I hope. For.

Lido Alliance Grants Proposal

Discussion: [EGG] Lido Alliance Grant Funding

Involves what I believe is a reasonable budget increase to the operations of the BORG. Enlisting new projects is an enticing ideas and I look forward to the expansion. For.

Multi-EGG Continuity Funding

Discussion: [EGG] Multi-EGG Continuity Grant Funding

I am particularly keen to see Dual Governance implemented as soon as possible and pleased to see it emphasised in the Multi-EGG proposal. I do note many fellow delegates looking for increased information about the budget and would echo these sentiments. It is difficult with so many committees, entities, etc. to follow the threads sometimes. For.

Extend On-Chain Voting Duration

Discussion: Optimizing Lido On-chain Voting Timelines for Inclusive Governance

I am in agreement with this proposal as the timelines do appear quite tight currently. While it is not typically a problem personally given my role as an academic, I imagine it might be much more difficult for those juggling multiple priorities (and as we expand so too do the kinds of people and their workflows). There’s a lot to consider with Lido votes and therefore the extension is to me a no-brainer. For.

Update Lido on Ethereum Standard Node Operator Protocol

Discussion: Update Proposal: Lido on Ethereum Standard Node Operator Protocol - Validator Exits

A solid quality of life improvement and where I can see no major issues raised against. For.