Polar - Delegate Thread

[polar]

This is an especially happy vote for me as it was Dual Governance that originally got me interested in Lido DAO. Vote 189.

This proposal has been extensively vetted with Deployment Verification, Formal Verification and two Audits. It has passed the previous Snapshot vote.

I see Dual Governance as broadly improving the decentralisation of Lido DAO by granting more autonomy to stETH holders, who are ultimately the end user w/ a direct stakeholder role in the ecosystem. It acts as a over-corrective on any outsized influence LDO whales may have (including delegates)! To my eye, it is a sort of sanity check that ensures there is an option should a proposal run against the interests of the Average Joe.

The committees involved appear to me well chosen (and I should note I am on the Tiebreaker Comittee) since they are distributed across the wider Ethereum ecosystem stakeholder set.

Overall I think it is a clever use of escrow mechanics to ensure all Lido community members have a voice or an option about governance decisions and I suspect more DAOs will adopt it going forward.

I want to congratulate all those involved as this clearly took a lot of game theory thinking to get correct.

[polar]

Vote 190

Rotate Lido on Ethereum Oracle Set member Kyber Network for Caliber, as per Snapshot decision. Items 1.1–1.6.

Confirms the previous Snapshot option to allow Caliber to succeed Kyber. Yes.

Increase CSM stake share limit from 2% to 3%.

Previous strong support on Snapshot. We need to increase the stake limit to see growth in the CSM. The charge reduction seems sensible in current market conditions. Yes.

Enable a grace period for CSM Node Operators by setting keyRemovalCharge = 0. Proposed on the Forum. Items 1.8-1.10.

This seems sensible and is time sensitive to July 2025 since CSM v2 goes live in August 2025. Yes.

Introduce a simplified CSVerifier for CSM. Proposed on the forum. Items 1.11, 1.12. Audit & deployment verification by MixBytes.

Having read the Conclusion in the MixBytes report which states no critical/high issues I am satisfied this will go smoothly. As a small note, it may make sense if these reports include a short Delegate summary or one is extracted, since we are essentially assessing the high level concerns. Yes.

Update the reward address and name for Node Operator ID 2 P2P.ORG - P2P Validator. Requested on the forum. Items 1.13, 1.14.

A functional change. Yes.

Switch off Easy Track environment for PML, ATC, RCC entities, deprecated after Snapshot-approved transition to Lido Labs and Lido Ecosystem BORG Foundations. Items 2–7.

An administrative change to enable the BORG transitions. Yes.

Snapshot votes

#### Triggerable Withdrawals Framework in the Lido Protocol #

Putting EIP-7002 to work in a very useful fashion. The VEB mechanism operates to my eye to expand the range of permissionlessness in the protocol, which is crucial. It reduces dependency on NO via the CL and allows parties to withdraw in a more autonomous fashion.

Easy Track Factories for Curated and sDVT to aid in exit requests seems necessary.

The TW limits seem sensible and well reasoned out For.

#### CSM v2 Final Rollout

I really like the idea of identifying community stakers and giving them benefits, but the Community Stakers Identification Framework stands out to me as quite detailed. I wonder if it is both onerous on those who manage it and those who try to adhere to it to join the CSM. I would just suggest that there could be loosening of some requirements here and still effectiveness. I am generally of the view that in our industry we should try and minimise demands on users, even quite specialised ones, where possible. This is a general tendency I see in anti-Sybil resistance, where we become a little over-zealous to stop bad guys by making good guys do quite a lot of extra work.

The new types, the increase and the MEV budget all seem sensible.

For.

[polar]

# Nethermind → Twinstake Validator Operations Migration

The LNOSG reports no issues with this transition and the team is highly responsive to the posted concerns on the research forum, such that I am satisfied this should go ahead.

Vote #191

This vote is to ‘Fix for the Dual Governance RageQuit mechanism’ as identified by Immunefi recently. The fix is Certora and Statemind (and it OZ also posted an analysis on the forum). This is a necessary fix for the relatively recent DG upgrade and so a no-brainer FOR. With thanks for Immunefi for spotting the bug.

[polar]

Lido v3

Strongly support Lido v3 as getting us closer to the GOOSE-2 vision. There is an important conceptual shift here from pool to infrastructure, an expansion of the product.

I am definitely excited to see stVaults in the context of the expansion of options it provides to the end user. I recently showed my students the Lido home page, which I do every year, and this year the shift in options is highly apparent. The retention of the Core Pool is sensible (I myself am a bit vanilla and will likely be a v2 type).

The 3%-30% jump caught my eye but I see no major concerns among commenters or security folks. ‘subject to risk assessments and governance processes’ - I am happy so long as we are kept up to date, especially with the risk mitigation.

Excellent work.

stVaults Committee

I think it is just good sense to have an oversight-style committee with Easy Track flexibility until ideally it is no longer needed. The analytics dashboard is a nice touch.

A small note. Lido appears to have many committees, many multisigs and there must be quite a lot of overlap among them. I wonder if at some stage we should look into this from a security perspective. I do also wonder sometimes about workload creep. Multisigs mean more devices, means more security, means more to track and document. There is a mention here of automation, perhaps to be explored.

CSM v2

I reiterate my point that the the Community Stakers Identification Framework appears somewhat over-engineered for both those who have to manage it and those who must do it.
As I have said before ‘This is a general tendency I see in anti-Sybil resistance, where we become a little over-zealous to stop bad guys by making good guys do quite a lot of extra work.’ But if those on the front line are happy then perhaps I am over-thinking it.

The the CSM stakeShareLimit increase to 5% is well-justified here. Onwards to 10% in the future!

Small note: another committee!

NEST

I admit this one had gone under the radar for me but appears to be something that should help address concerns from LDO holders that they get overlooked. More of this!

Apologies for the lack of links. This update was written while on a trip.

[polar]

Update the Lido on Ethereum Validator Exits SNOP to v3

Yes.

Rationale seems sensible to me and brings us up to date wrt latest technical developments, both here and within Ethereum more broadly. I note no disagreements or issues raised on the research forum.

Empower Lido Ecosystem Foundation to Lead Bridge-Related Partnerships

Yes. In terms of efficiency it makes sense for LE to be able to operate independently and without micro-management in terms of the DAO. The BSC seems a sensible bulwark and DAO retains ultimate veto power.

Per my usual comment yet another committee. I do wonder are people content to be on so many committees, are they compensated, etc.? Even if they are not evoked often it really does seem like each major proposal comes with a new one.

[polar]

Lido Ecosystem Grants Organization (LEGO) — Framework Update 1 October 2025

I don’t think anyone has ever complained about a DAO committee halving its budget and I’m not about to start here. This is a very positive change to see. The LDO deprecation and stablecoin orientation seems sensible. I would be interested in how we are using the small grants system since it can be approved by one member but I do think this is the most efficient method. At the current stage it might be best to support proposals that are more market oriented wrt LDO.
It would be helpful to know why one council member departs and another is added. These are likely benign but it’s a little opaque from my perspective.

FOR.

Transfer TRP to Lido Labs Foundation and Amend TRP Terms

It is good to see the overallocation of tokens addressed. A consistent subtle issue remains around LDO and its performance. And it is excellent to see clear accountability so that the ‘34.5 million LDO have been committed, exceeding the 22 million LDO originally authorized’ situation does not recur. I do believe option iii as outlined in the original post and now in this form represents the middle ground.

FOR.

Two small Snapshot votes:

Conversion of Treasury Stablecoins into sUSDS or TMMFs

Functional request to implement TMC-6 strategy. Everything looks sensible.

Curated Module Fee Changes

Functional request to adjust the fee structure for Node Operators in the current Curated Module (CM or CMv1). No issues with this.

[polar]

Adopt The SEAL Safe Harbor Agreement

I am a long time follower of SEAL and their efforts and consider this an absolute no-brainer. The bounties will be repaid in full in terms of peace of mind (or as close as one might have in our industry). I suspect that we are entering a new era of AI-driven smart contract vuln hacks and therefore this is also quite timely. The % and bounty cap seem very reasonable.
Strongly Approve.

GOOSE 2025 cycle: Lido DAO goals for 2026

Lido Alliance BORG – Amendment of Bylaws to Enable GOOSE-3 Execution

Ecosystem Grant gRequest (EGG): Executing GOOSE-3

I am taking these three together since as the GOOSE votes.

First, I admit to not being aware that GOOSE could have multiple proposers. I suspect that it is unlikely any other entity would feel confident enough to propose an alternative and probably it is better to just have it that it is set by the Foundations. Or else someone like Hasu, who outlined the previous ones (which also made me wonder why Hasu did not do this one).

The goals appear to me quite reasonable and concrete.

1. It takes a realist approach to the coming institutional adoption and places preparedness for the VanEck ETF as first priority, which I think is especially important. I am mindful more and more of how Lido acts as a bulwark against a world where centralised exchanges lead the staking industry in partnership with traditional financial institutions, which is an outcome to be robustly resisted. The focus on stVaults infrastructure, institutional/DeFi partners and go-to-market efforts are quite focused and clear.

2. Protocol resistance is, of course, a traditional value, the concrete implementation of secure protocol. I think the quite specific on CMv2, SRv3 and ValMart are all reasonable. This is complex work and should be funded appropriately.

3. This signifies a mature recognition that we are entering more and more an era where revenue streams are expected and are what ultimately differentiate mature DeFi offerings from fly by night ventures. Lido is already blue chip but establishing a sustainable long term revenue steam is the new ‘top player’ criteria. I think perhaps the list of potential users is a little overly optimistic. Are restakers are large segment going forward, is there much different between a passive earner and a DeFi user or a stablecoin saver?

4. The vertical expansion is enticing and speaks to a certain confidence in the protocol. I look forward to seeing what products might emerge here. Right now it seems a little vague but I presume much is being worked on behind the scenes. My general caution here is that we should avoid this resulting in too many exploratory committees, etc. That perhaps we may enter a phase where we work within our bounds.

A small comment would be that the talk of values is relatively light. This is perhaps part of a new realist or pragmatist era but we need to be careful that they don’t disappear from our lexicon. Per the rule that if we don’t speak them nobody will.

In the EGG outline I believe the Expand the Staking Ecosystem, Resilience and Revenue stream requests seem quite reasonable. I wonder whether we will get to see the Big Bet at work.

I have voted to ADOPT GOOSE-3, FOR the amendment and to APPROVE EGG.

[polar]

Vote #194

I am strongly support stVaults as expanding the options to the end user and the soft launch rationale appears sensible. Keeping the audience relatively constrained to known partners gives breathing room to see how everything plays out and the opening to the public is not so long after, so the pilot does not cause an undue delay (and was outlined in the original Snapshot). Reviewing the audits I see no causes for concern. I see this as getting us closer to the more diverse product line concept from GOOSE-2 that very much in line with GOOSE-3’s goals concerning the expansion of the ecosystem. Hopefully the first building block toward institutional adoption.

For the items I consulted Ithe verification guide provided here And to the best of my ability the items in the onchain vote appear to match up to the guide.

Vote 195

For this vote, I cross-referenced the proposal items with the corresponding claims on the research forums since they are broadly functional changes to figures or transfers. For 1. For the standard tier (1.1.) I am curious how the manual rebate will happen for the other tiers.

Vote 196/197

Voted For: Governance asset recovery proposal

[polar]

Rewards Share Committee Reform

This all seems quite useful, to update what is a little outdated when it comes to the naming conventions and remit of the committee. The additional functions are both useful, though let’s hope that automation come in sooner rather than late. I am always a little curious how these committee are forms, are these people who are being paid in roles otherwise and then as part of their roles they are expected to also be on committees? Where do these decisions get made?

DVT & DVV Incentive Allocation Changes

This looks a positive change, a dynamic structure is often better in these instances but one for us to observe and revisit.

Vote 198

v3, phase 2! Lots of benefits here, from PDG on mainnet, stVaults limit raised to 3M ETH, the better UI/wrappers and governance remodelling. The soft launch looks to have been a success and I praise the sensible approach to having done so first. This iterative approach is the way to do go. The audits are very comprehensive here. Excellent work.