Untangling the original post, it’s clear there are two, largely orthogonal, decisions at hand:
-
A decision on an outflow of ≈
40 ETHfrom the Lido DAO treasury to help Sushi (this is the amount which came into the treasury as a result of the exploit). -
A wider policy decision on whether or not the DAO should ever act as an arbiter between stakers, node operators, and third parties – and if so, how, and under what conditions.
The discussion so far has revolved almost entirely around the second decision – yet this has not been made clear within the discussion itself.
To minimize the risk of decisions, on both fronts, being made for the wrong reasons, it makes sense to move these two decisions into separate threads where they can be discussed individually.
I’ve created a child thread for the first decision here. Snapshot date will be this Thursday (May 4th). Please chime in with your thoughts, but try to keep it focused on the decision at hand.
As for the second decision, which @kadmil has touched on above, we’re starting work on a Swiss Booklet style document which summarizes the debate so far and presents the full spectrum of options and their respective tradeoffs as clearly as possible (see here for a prior example). Realistically, doing this well will take a couple of weeks, so expect this to be posted for further discussion on the week of May 15th (we will cross-link it here).