Wow, had to go back a bit and dig into past threads to figure out what’s going on, so I’ll put down what I had to trace back for others to easily inform themselves for the vote.
LIP 23 was passed June 24 to improve the safety check for the accounting report in the case of a negative rebase. Among the improvements, there was the possibility to consult a secondary Oracle, but none was ready at the time:
At the time, 3 implementations were suggested.
- One approach was deemed too expensive:
-
another approach hasn’t updated since 2023 (unless I’ve missed another thread):
DendrETH: A trustless oracle for liquid staking protocols -
and this one, whose original thread can be found here:
https://research.lido.fi/t/zk-lido-oracle-powered-by-succinct/
I’m very happy that all this is being built openly and we can see the rationale, design process, effects, audits and tests. Honestly amazing work again by the Lido team building in the open and organising other teams to help build critical pieces.
In the LIP-23 definition, the following security consideration is mentioned:
“Considering the current design of the Dual governance, it is possible that the protocol will face a deadlock. If the protocol is in a rage quit state, votes cannot be executed unless all stETH is withdrawn from the rage quit contract. Withdrawal requires an Oracle report, so if something (…) would cause the trigger of the sanity check, the protocol enters a dead-lock situation, where stETH can not be withdrawn due to the lack of Oracle reports, Oracle reports do not pass due to sanity check, and the sanity check cannot be changed since votes are blocked by Dual Governance veto.”
Would the 2nd Opinion Oracle unwind this gridlock described above?
I think you hint at the response to my question here, but I rather ask than assume.