Rationale: As the largest solo staking community, we are gladly supporting this proposal with a ‘for’ vote. More decentralisation, extra safety measures, better performance tracking and a comprehensive framework for all type of Node Operators showcase in this proposal, which also is accompanied of the increase of the CSM stakeshare, the ultimate proof of seeing module growth.
Rationale: We voted ‘for’ this proposal. The Triggerable Withdrawals Framework is a huge step forward for Lido. The fact that validators can be exited by the DAO directly from Ethereum’s execution layer if they or their Node Operators go rogue or lose their keys makes the protocol more resilient while it increases community control over validator management. Another great point is the split of the GateSeal into separate contracts. Looking forward to seeing it implemented.
Rationale: Since Twinstake will meet the high standards that Nethermind held while running their validators, we support the validator operation migration.
Rationale: We voted for this proposal as it proposes a governance mechanism that’s a must for Lido V3. The stVaults Committee seems well-balanced, with expertise from contributors from different areas of the protocol. Their responsibilities are well-defined, and relying on Easy Track makes sense. Lastly, the Committee members seem to be qualified for their role.
Rationale: We voted for this proposal since it brings an interesting LDO buybacks mechanism to replace ad-hoc votes. The modular approach makes sense, and it would give the DAO the flexibility to automate surplus allocation in the future. The proposal asks for concept approval to keep researching and there’s no funding request, so it’s a good idea to give it a go.
Rationale: We voted for this long-awaited proposal. Lido V3 addresses the trade-off between user choice and shared liquidity that’s been limiting Lido’s growth. Great decision going with the modular approach through stVaults. We agree with the phased rollout with caps starting at 3% TVL. Given that audits are almost done and testnets have been running smoothly, it feels like the right time to move forward with this proposal.
Rationale: We voted for this proposal. Updating the SNOP to be in line with the Pectra upgrade is a must. Also, clarifying the exit procedures for the new staking modules, SDVT and CSM, by standardising the documentation across all SNOPs brings clarity for everyone. We look forward to getting more details about the revised accountability framework, like the new penalties or consequences for non-conformance behaviour, which weren’t explicit in the proposal or the forum discussion. Beyond that minor detail, a solid proposal
Rationale: We voted for this proposal, as it follows the latest DAO’s trend of prioritising quicker decisions, which makes sense given the pace of development in the crypto ecosystem. As the proposal mentioned, there are some trade-offs. LDO holders must be on point to activate a Snapshot dispute process if they consider that a partnership is not aligned with Lido’s best interest or seems too risky.
That being said, the new structure, with the BORG in charge of negotiations, the NEC providing its technical expertise, and the BSC taking care of the risk oversight, is well established to prevent any problems within the bridge recognition process. Lastly, we also think that the BSC members seem qualified for their role, and the fact that the DAO remains the ultimate authority in the process made us support this proposal.