Hello! Can you please provide the proof of the statement below:
I have checked all the Snapshot votings during the period of the abovementioned proposal (begging of 2023) and there was NO voting on it. On the contrary, the proposal with the same aim (A decision on an outflow of 39.8 ETH from the Lido DAO treasury to aid in the Sushi recovery (restart) ) neither got DAO support, nor reached the quorum to be accepted:
No action: 99.23%
Send 39.8 ETH to sifuvision.eth: 0.77%
I have a full empathy to the situation you faced, but it opens a Pandora box for a bunch of cases with exploits, MEV, wrong tx, etc. and put Lido in risk of constant compensations, although it should not. Hasu summarised this perfectly earlier:
A similar situation happened recently, where a Sushiswap trader lost money by authorizing a bad transaction and then approached LidoDAO about it (Thread 1 , Thread 2 .) LidoDAO did not vote to send money to the trader and should do the same in this one.
Fact is, the funds in the EL rewards vault don’t belong to LidoDAO but to stakers, and the DAO has no control over them. Acting as an arbitrator between third parties who lost money to MEV and stakers would be highly problematic for Lido for three reasons:
An MEV arbitration policy opens a significant attack surface on Lido.
Lido is neutral middleware.
Lido should minimize the role of governance.
For the full arguments, please read the threads linked above.
4 Likes