Thank you @KimonSh for the proposal, and we are for the direction of expanding the coverage of DVT, which will enhance decentralization and make it more economically attractive to solo stakers and more professional operators in the world.
However, we have several questions to be shared.
- How can we mitigate the risk of DVT protocols have?
We believe that the risk cannot be underestimated and that bunker mode should not be taken casually. The problem here is that no party is undertaking the risk of malfunction of DVT protocols. Loss caused by the failure of curated NOs is currently compensated by the NOs responsible for the loss. But for DVTs, there is no party undertaking risks such as mass-slashing in DVTs, and the cover fund vault cannot cover the worst-case scenarios.
There could be multiple options to take including insurance that was already discussed here.
We are aware that insurance doesn’t make sense for Lido DAO as explained in the thread, but that doesn’t mean we should compromise on taking risks.
- What would be the targeted revenue for DVT NOs?
As proposed, we have to improve the reward for NOs of DVTs, or otherwise their sustainable operations aren’t feasible. Raising the target share of DVT module is a good solution. But if we add too many NOs for the increased share, then NOs economical environment doesn’t change as you might be aware. It would be great if you could share expected changes in numbers of NOs/clusters/validators.
- How will we choose ANO?
This would supposedly depend on performance but would love to have better clarity on how DVT NOs will be chosen to ANOs. Information around the criteria, process, timeline, etc is appreciated.
- Where does 3.5% of share come from then?
Since DVT module is gaining 3.5% of share, which module is losing it? It seems like Curated NOs are losing it, but there could be some other factors. We wanted to make sure we clearly understands the implication of this change.