WhitePaper Reading Club Delegate Thread

Delegate Platform
1

WPRC LIDO DAO Delegate Proposal Submission

Contact Information:

Introduction to WPRC

The Whitepaper Reading Club (WPRC) is a collective of Web3 veterans, enthusiasts, engineers, and thinkers united by a shared curiosity to explore the mechanics driving the Web3 revolution. We aim to create a space that fosters deep, technical discussions on whitepapers without the distractions of promotional content. Our mission is to build a community where healthy debate and rigorous analysis of Web3 technologies thrive.

Key Working Group Members For This Proposal:

Motivation

The Whitepaper Reading Club (WPRC) is positioned to make meaningful contributions to Lido DAO, aligned with its mission to establish Ethereum as a critical layer for coordination and value creation on the internet.

Our values and coordination mechanisms are aligned with the Ethereum Foundation’s Infinite Garden philosophy, which advocates for nurturing a decentralized ecosystem through collective community effort. We embrace and align with the Infinite Garden philosophy as a community through:

  1. Enhancing the Quality of Discussions and Feedback: Our practice in producing detailed analyses on whitepaper and DAO proposals for each of our WPRC sessions aligns with Lido DAO’s objective of improving the quality of discussions and feedback. WPRC’s rigorous approach ensures that proposals are thoroughly evaluated, leading to more informed and effective decision-making.
  2. Nurturing Knowledge: We focus on fostering knowledge and healthy debate, emphasising the importance of cultivating rather than controlling the ecosystem. This approach supports the long-term health of the network, promoting resilience and ongoing learning within the community.
  3. Ecosystem-Agnostic, Independent Perspectives: WPRC is composed of Web3 veterans, engineers, and thinkers—ranging from experienced contributors to newcomers in the Ethereum ecosystem—who engage in structured, thoughtful discussions on whitepapers across the entire Web3 landscape. Our approach is ecosystem-agnostic and maintains a neutral lens, fostering open dialogue that encourages the generation of new ideas and innovations. We believe that these discussions play a critical role in enhancing both the sustainability and the evolution of the broader Ethereum ecosystem.
  4. Continuous Improvement: Our discussions are designed to contribute to an ecosystem’s continuous improvement, with a focus on long-term outcomes rather than immediate gains.
  5. Organic Community Growth: WPRC’s growth from a small group to a robust community of over 250 people has been entirely organic, driven by the quality and relevance of our discussions. This growth reflects our ability to engage members without resorting to promotion, maintaining a focus on substantive contributions.
  6. Increasing Active Voting Participation: WPRC encourages active engagement among its members, with a selection of core working group members nominated in this paper who are prepared to participate in Lido DAO’s governance. By facilitating informed discussions, we help ensure a higher rate of active and meaningful voting participation, directly supporting Lido DAO’s governance goals.
  7. Attracting and Activating New Token Holders: WPRC’s open and inclusive culture demystifies complex governance issues, attracting new participants to Lido DAO. By fostering understanding and promoting insightful discussions, we help promote more active DAO governance, encouraging broader participation and informed decision-making.
  8. Providing Web3 Expertise and Advisory: With members skilled in governance, blockchain tech, community growth, and more, WPRC offers valuable insights that can guide Lido DAO’s strategic direction and governance practices, aligning with the DAO’s aspirations for expert feedback and advisory.
  9. Supporting Innovation in Commons and Public Goods Funding: Our exploration of new models for funding public goods can help Lido DAO lead in promoting sustainable, community-driven solutions, contributing to the broader Ethereum ecosystem’s health and sustainability.
  10. Strengthen Community and Wider Ecosystem Ties: WPRC’s commitment to open, neutral, and inclusive dialogue strengthens ties not only within the Ethereum ecosystem but also with projects beyond it that are active in governance. By fostering collaboration and cross-pollination of ideas across various blockchain ecosystems, we help build a more cohesive, resilient and censorship resistant network through Proof of Stake, Proof of Governance, and beyond with the Lido DAO.

In conclusion, WPRC seeks to become a delegate within Lido DAO to bring informed insights and align with the core values that define Ethereum and its community. Our goal is to enhance the quality of governance proposals, increase active voting participation, and foster more diverse community engagement. We are motivated by the belief that inclusive, informed discussions are crucial for the health and growth of all Web3 ecosystems. By providing a structured platform for holistic analysis of blockchain technologies and governance mechanisms across various disciplines, WPRC is poised to contribute meaningfully to Lido DAO’s governance efforts.

Values and Decision-Making Approach

WPRC’s Core Values are established as below:

  • Integrity: We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of honesty and ethical behavior in all our discussions.
  • Focus: Our discussions are strictly centered around the content of the whitepapers, ensuring that the dialogue remains on-topic and productive.
  • No Promotion: We maintain a strict policy against the promotion of projects or events within our discussions.
  • Permissionless Participation: We believe in the inclusivity of our community, allowing anyone with a genuine interest to participate.
  • Healthy Debate: We encourage open dialogue and the challenging of assumptions, ensuring a dynamic and engaging environment.

Decision-Making Process: WPRC operates on a democratic basis where all members have the opportunity to contribute to discussions and decisions. Paper selections are made through community voting, and decisions are taken with the collective input of all active members. The reading process is as follows:

  • Paper Selection: Members propose whitepapers, and the community votes to select two for each session.
  • Meetings: We meet every 2-3 weeks, beginning with a 10-minute reading period, followed by a roundtable discussion.
  • Discussion Focus: Our sessions are centered solely on the whitepapers, strictly avoiding any promotional content.

Based on our existing decision-making process which has proven to create productive discussions around whitepapers and DAO proposals, we propose to extend this discussion format to deliberating on important decisions to be made in Lido DAO. We believe that our collective approach and healthy debate will lead to both sustained and well-considered contributions to decision-making in the DAO.

Public Acceptance

WPRC accepts and aligns the Lido Public Delegate Code of Conduct and commits to being aligned with Purpose/Mission/Values of Lido DAO. Our commitment is to contribute to the DAO with integrity, transparency, and a focus on fostering a deep understanding of the technologies that underpin the Web3 ecosystem.

Disclosures

Our contributors come from diverse backgrounds from industry, to government and to academia. As a collective where decisions made are based on healthy debate and discussions, WPRC members are already encouraged to disclose any potential conflicts of interest during our discussions. As of now, no significant conflicts of interest have been identified that would affect our contributions to the DAO.

3 Likes
2

Hello Lido Community from DevCon!

Apologies for the lack of recent updates in our delegate thread. @Stakesaurus and I plan to share an update after DevCon with our progress and insights. Additionally, I mistakenly thought the voting cycle followed the GOOSE Key Dates (that is voting period post November 9), which led to some delay in my picking up on the snapshot proposals that had recently passed—apologies for this oversight.

I appreciate the chance to clarify our intentions and current approach as a delegate in the Lido community. As a newer delegate introduced to the LIDO community by @Stakesaurus, I’m navigating the steep learning curve of DAO governance while working to support the WRPC collective’s educational goals. The WRPC has been more focused on protocol papers, ecosystem-agnostic research and general governance education, so our outreach has centered around broader, cross-community insights. We are currently in the process of re-aligning expectations with WPRC on governance coordination and hope to receive a resolution after DevCon.

However, I recognize that deeper engagement within specific communities, such as LIDO, requires a dedicated approach. Both Sam and I are committed to stepping into this role and strengthening our presence as active delegates. Regarding delegation discovery, there are still open questions about how to effectively identify delegators and on the delegate side, establish the capacity to contribute to specific projects in a sustainable and incentivized manner. At this stage, I don’t yet have all the answers to address these challenges fully.

Thank you again for your guidance and understanding. I look forward to updating the community soon and am committed to engaging in discussions and sharing voting insights to support Lido’s governance initiatives. I’ll also be attending the LIDO Connect Conference at DevCon Bangkok and hope to meet you there if anyone else is attending!

Warm Regards

Katherine.

2 Likes
3

Hello Lido Community!

Post-DevCon, I’m excited to share some exciting learnings on governance and decentralized collaboration from the incredible DAO-focused events I attended:

  • SEED Governance Day: Kudos to @SEEDOrg for an amazing conference!

  • DAO Asia Summit: I spoke on “ASEAN’s Coordination Model: Learnings for Decentralized Governance and DAO Adoption in SEA”. This presentation explored how ASEAN’s approach to balancing sovereignty and regional collaboration can offer valuable insights for DAOs. By fostering decentralized cooperation across diverse stakeholders—including governments, private enterprises, and Web3 innovators—it highlights how DAOs can create coordinated, interoperable policies while preserving autonomy.

  • Lido Connect Conference: This was a stellar conference where I got to connect with many Lido contributors! Team SEEK (comprising of our names @Stakesaurus, Eugene, Elizatbeth, Katashe) secured first place at the Lido Connect Quiz Competition :confetti_ball:

2048Ă—1536 452 KB

1433Ă—2048 193 KB

  • DevCon Governance Hub: Attended the hub for governance enthusiasts onsite at Devcon, which was an incredibly inspiring experience (details here).

I was looking forward to vote on the current active proposal as a collective, but unfortunately, our delegation was finalized after the snapshot date, so we couldn’t participate in this round. However, we’re committed to governance and will share our voting rationale here in this thread. I hope this approach resonates with the community and welcome your feedback:

Proposal: Establishing the Network Expansion Committee
Vote: For
Voting Rationale: We support the proposal to establish the Network Expansion Committee (NEC) for Lido DAO as it provides a formalized structure for managing the expansion of (w)stETH to new networks while addressing key risks associated with cross-chain operations. The NEC introduces a transparent and accountable framework for recognizing (w)stETH bridging endpoints and denominations, replacing the informal Network Expansion Workgroup with a more secure and flexible governance mechanism.

The proposal addresses the following critical considerations:

1. Streamlining Governance:
The NEC’s streamlined decision-making structure improves adaptability when expanding to new networks while maintaining accountability to the DAO, so that network expansions are both strategic and transparent.
2. Operational Efficiency and Risk Mitigation:
A well-defined NEC reduces reliance on multi-sigs and unstructured workgroups, mitigating risks of miscommunication and delays. Its formal framework ensures that network expansions align with Lido DAO’s security and decentralization principles, with unanimous approval required for NEC decisions (4/4 vote) and an override mechanism via DAO vote.
3. Cross-Chain Governance Project Comparisons:
The NEC focuses specifically on (w)stETH’s bridging and network expansion needs, while the Wormhole Multigov system offers cross-chain governance execution capabilities. We recommend exploring how NEC processes could integrate with systems like Wormhole Multigov for enhanced cross-chain governance execution with formalizing bridging endpoints, allowing flexibility in adopting multigov solutions where appropriate.

By supporting this proposal, we help enable a secure, transparent, and adaptable approach to Lido’s network expansion strategy, safeguarding the protocol’s long-term success and decentralization.

Proposal: Reevaluation of Lido on Polygon state
Vote: Sunset Lido on Polygon
Voting Rationale: As described in GOOSE and reGOOSE, we agree that having a laser focus on Ethereum is the most sustainable path forward and one with the highest operational leverage for the Lido protocol.

One other point to consider for future pilots for new network expansions is that newer protocols will have an edge over Lido because they will be able to incentivise TVL using token issuance. This is in contrast to LDO, where the majority is already in the hands of the community.

This again highlights that the best play is to focus on the Ethereum ecosystem.

If we do want to explore beyond the Ethereum ecosystem however, we suggest future pilots to adopt smaller-scale, milestone-based approaches to test feasibility and ROI before committing significant resources. This would mitigate risks, provide better cost control, and allow the DAO to pivot more effectively based on measurable results.

Proposal: Should Nansen continue in SDVT following the acquisition of Stakewithus?
Vote: For
Voting Rationale: Congratulations to @Nansen on the acquisition of StakeWithUs, a non-custodial staking provider backed by SGInnovate. Noting the evaluation by the LNOSG, we are confident of Nansen’s ability to continue their high performance in the Simple DVT programme. Further, the operational segregation between StakeWithUs and Nansen’s other activities ensures that the performance and security requirements critical to the Lido DAO’s SDVT can be met.

Proposal: Should Alchemy continue in SDVT and LoP following the acquisition of Bware Labs?
Vote: For
Voting Rationale: We support continuing Alchemy’s participation in SDVT and LoP programs following its acquisition of Bware Labs. The LNOSG review confirms that the transition does not introduce operational risks or changes that would compromise performance, decentralization, or security.

Proposal: Should Pier Two continue in the Curated Module Set following the acquisition of Numic?
Vote: For
Voting Rationale: The proposal to allow Pier Two to continue as a Node Operator in the Curated Module Set after acquiring Numic is supported by several key factors. The acquisition strategically combines Numic’s operational expertise with Pier Two’s resources and commitment to achieving advanced security certifications such as ISO 27001:2022 and SOC-2. This integration enhances infrastructure quality and compliance within the Ethereum ecosystem, strengthening both entities’ contributions to Lido.

Additionally, the Lido Node Operator Sub-Governance Group (LNOSG) has reviewed the acquisition and proposed a structured onboarding process, which includes a testnet trial run followed by a gradual mainnet ramp-up to identify and address any operational issues early.

Proposal: Hasu’s GOOSE-2 Submission A Product Line Approach to Grow Lido’s Staking Ecosystem
Vote: Adopt Goals
Voting Rationale:
We support the adoption of the goals outlined in @Hasu’s GOOSE-2 submission.

From Product to Product Line:

This is indeed a thoughtful strategy that adapts to the reality of the market demand observed over the past year and we are glad that the importance of a separate product line catering to institutional stakers is being recognised.

I personally witnessed the challenges of institutional adoption firsthand in my practice. Solutions like stETH and Lido Institutional offer clear benefits—deep liquidity, diversification, and superior rewards—but adoption often stalls due to regulatory barriers, such as the need for a known counterparty responsible for custody and governance. Another concern is the classification of staking rewards, which are distinct from speculative products yet often misunderstood. Proactively educating policymakers to view staking as a technical service, not a financial product, is important. However, this process requires sustained advocacy over multi-year cycles, with periods of slow groundwork followed by bursts of rapid action when consultations arise.

To drive institutional adoption, we must recognize that the market cannot adopt a one-size-fits-all stETH given its diversified needs. Expanding into the other identified beachhead markets leverages stETH’s strengths as high-quality collateral while addressing unique priorities like compliance, risk-adjusted returns, and capital efficiency.

A Market for Validators

This approach fits well with the overall direction that Ethereum researchers are taking–e.g., Rainbow Staking, Orbit SSF–that aims to bifurcate the duties more suited for professional node operators vs solo stakers, and incentivising them accordingly.

As such, we will likely be one step ahead of the competition by investing resources into building this out now.

LDO: More than Governance

While we are supportive, we’d like to voice out a few points for consideration.

Tying LDO more directly to protocol revenue will improve alignment of LDO holders with the protocol by increasing their skin in the game. However, implementing a straightforward “fee switch” would also expose the LDO token to valuation scrutiny through traditional financial metrics.For example, the market capitalisation of LDO to revenue will currently be 133x if we assume 1% of stETH fees go to LDO holders due to a “fee switch”, which could be perceived as overvalued

As such, it would be interesting to explore new use cases for LDO within the new stETH product lines. E.g., Stake LDO to vote for vaults that one thinks will generate more revenue for the DAO and receive a larger share of DAO revenues from that vault.

This achieves 2 outcomes:

  1. Reduce sell pressure: LDO is not sold if it is staked
  2. Efficient capital allocation: TVL can be automatically balanced across vaults

Credits: Thank you @Jenya_K for helping facilitate this delegate thread process, @Stakesaurus for feedback and review, and x23.ai for powering my research feed.

4 Likes
4

False Representation

To the Lido DAO Team,

My name is Rongxin, and I am the founder of the Whitepaper Reading Club (“WPRC”), a not-for-profit group established 1.5 years ago in Singapore to facilitate deep technical discussions on blockchain projects. Since inception, we have grown to 330 members.
Rongxin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rongxinz
Website: https://whitepaperreading.club

Recently, we were shocked to discover that Katherine Ng (@katashesolutions) submitted an application on the Lido Delegation Platform (“Application”) claiming that the WPRC intends to participate as a Lido DAO Delegate (“Delegate”), abide by the Lido DAO Delegation Program’s code of conduct (“Program”), and that she represents the WPRC.
The Application: WhitePaper Reading Club Delegate Thread.

Katherine Ng does not represent the WPRC, our members, or myself in any capacity. The Application to be a Delegate was never discussed or approved by all our members. Katherine Ng has never been authorized to represent the WPRC, our members or myself. We do not accept or endorse this Application. Any issues arising from this Application are entirely unrelated to the WPRC or myself.

In light of the above, it appears that Katherine Ng and her collaborator, Samuel Chong (@Stakesaurus), may be exploiting this misrepresentation to gain financial benefits and influence through the Lido DAO Delegation Program, at the expense and risk of the WPRC, myself, and the Lido DAO.

Let me elaborate:

(1) As you may know, the Lido DAO Delegation Program provides monetary incentives to Delegates. However, the wallet address submitted by Katherine Ng in the Application to receive rewards does not belong to the WPRC. This raises serious concerns about who will receive the rewards.
Lido DAO Program Incentive: Snapshot.

(2) Katherine Ng stated in the Application that there are “no significant conflicts of interest”. However, her collaborator Samuel Chong receives funding from the Lido DAO and is a member of the Lido Ecosystem Grants Organization (LEGO) Sub-Committee. How can Samuel Chong serve as a Delegate in the same DAO that pays him and in which he serves as a committee member? This complex network of overlapping interests is a clear conflict of interest. Katherine Ng and her collaborator’s actions undoubtedly undermine the integrity and fairness of the Lido DAO Delegate Program.
Lido Lifeguard Program: Lido Community Lifeguards Initiative, Lido Community Lifeguards Initiative - #32 by Eridian
LEGO SubCommittee: Lido Community Lifeguards Initiative - #46 by Stakesaurus

(3) Serving as a Delegate is not a ceremonial role. It carries substantial responsibilities and potential legal exposure. If the above misrepresented Delegates inflict harm on Lido token holders, there could be severe legal risks for the WPRC, our members and myself.
Lido DAO vs Samuels: California Court Rules Lido DAO Members Can Be Held Liable Under Partnership Laws - Decrypt

Lido DAO plays a pivotal role in ensuring the security and stability of the Ethereum network. Thus, the integrity and character of its Delegates should reflect the gravity of this role. In light of the above events, and to avoid unnecessary damage to the WPRC and Lido DAO’s reputation and interests, I strongly urge the Lido DAO team to reconsider Katherine Ng’s Application and to rethink whether she is an ambassador of the values of the Lido DAO and the broader Ethereum Ecosystem.

3 Likes
5

@Jenya_K @kethfinex @Eridian @Alex_L @Izzy :point_up_2:

6

Thank you for bringing this issue to the forum. Transparency is crucial for accountability and improving DAO processes. Let me provide context that is also worth mentioning here and outline the next steps.

  1. Eligibility for Incentivization:

The WPRC delegate does not meet the criteria for financial incentives, which require at least 2 million LDO tokens delegated.

  1. Submission Without Approval:

The WPRC application was submitted without community discussion or approval. I fully agree that this is unacceptable and goes against our principles of collaboration.

  1. Rebranding Intentions:

@katashesolutions have mentioned plans to stop representing WPRC and rebrand delegates but have yet to act on this. If I had known WPRC initially opposed program participation itself, I would have addressed this differently. Thank you for clarifying.

  1. @Stakesaurus’ Role in Governance:

While I do not see @Stakesaurus’ participation in the Delegation Program and Community Lifeguards Initiative as a blocker, I agree it must be disclosed to maintain transparency. At the same time, his involvement was not hidden from the community, suggesting that there was no attempt to conceal @Stakesaurus’ involvement.

Overlapping roles in DAOs are not unusual. In fact, it is often beneficial for active contributors deeply engaged with the protocol to have a stronger role in governance. Their expertise and involvement help align governance decisions with the protocol’s needs. However, these roles must always be clearly disclosed to ensure transparency and avoid any perception of conflict.

Next Steps

Here’s how I’ll address the situation:

  1. Remove the Delegate:
    We will remove the WPRC delegate from the platform and UI to avoid further misrepresentation asap.
  2. Investigate the Issue:
    We will neutrally review what happened and share the results with the community to maintain transparency.
  3. Improve Processes:
    To prevent this in the future, we’ll require organizations to confirm their consent for delegate applications. This will be a mandatory step managed by the Delegate Oversight Committee for any delegate to remain listed on the forum and UI.

Thank you for taking the time to raise this issue here on the forum. Your effort in bringing attention to this situation is essential for maintaining transparency and improving our governance processes.

2 Likes
7

Hi Rong Xin,

Thank you for sharing your perspective. As members of WPRC, we are deeply shocked by this course of action.

Firstly, I would like to dispute the claim that this is a case of “false representation” and clarify that it is, in fact, a case of miscommunication and change of alignment on your end. Allow me to explain the genesis and rationale of the delegate thread:

The WPRC SubDAO Working Group Telegram Chat (“working group”) was created on 23 July 2024 in response to collective encouragement to find sustainable ideas to grow WPRC. This idea was conceived at the MakerDAO Endgame Reading Session, facilitated by yourself and @Stakesaurus on 11th June 2024. Any funds arising from these activities, should they materialize, would be reinvested into the Whitepaper Reading Club (referred henceforth as “WRPC” or “the Club”), including potential delegate incentives, for the benefit of the community.

Here is what we represented in our Delegate Proposal submission: I understand the WPRC to be a member-driven collective. I do not claim to represent the entire WPRC; rather, we introduced the WRPC. I, as a WPRC member, contribute as one member among many—just as Sam and Joseph do. As WPRC members, we constitute the working group dedicated to developing the delegate proposal for the Lido DAO. Later on, in a subsequent post, given that it is difficult to find many dedicated WPRC contributors, we finalized the main contributors from WPRC to the Lido DAO, which are Sam and myself.

Whilst I have only joined WPRC recently this year and consider myself a new member, I understand the values of the Club to be supporting an open culture of learning, experimentation and permissionless discussions.

Given the Club is an open source community and acts as a collective, I would never act unilaterally. Instead, as a new member, I rely on administrators (such as @Stakesaurus, who is the administrator of the WPRC Telegram) or the owner of the WPRC Telegram group (yourself) to guide me as we explore potential discussion topics, in this case, decentralized governance across various ecosystems.

Our intent to participate in the Lido Delegate Thread rallies has been transparently communicated in this Telegram working group chat, of which you are a part of. The discussion then continued with an open call for review and drafting contributions in the working group chat. I volunteered to take the lead in drafting the content of the delegate thread, and shared it for open review in the working group.

image
image730Ă—965 170 KB

Our intention was to always align with WPRC values and utilize the funds for the growth of WPRC, and there was never any intention to profit from the Club. @Stakesaurus and I also approached you for direct alignment on next steps multiple times since Oct 21, however you were unresponsive:

image
image1298Ă—1101 135 KB

image
image770Ă—989 155 KB

Sam and I were ready to align and even shared our ideas to kick off discussions. However, despite our efforts over the past few months to seek your guidance directly, you chose to address this matter publicly in an acrimonious manner rather than discussing it with us first.

While I do recognize that you are the Owner of the WPRC Telegram group, I did not know you are the Founder, as the broader organizational structure was never clearly outlined in the website nor the WPRC Telegram chat. You may claim to be “the Founder”, but even when we went to seek your guidance and support, we did not receive it. As a result, we’ve been left without clear guidance on what we should or shouldn’t do, particularly when it comes to delegate proposals within WPRC. Without a clear understanding of how decisions are made and who provides final approval—all of which ultimately hinge on transparent communication—we’ve ended up in this situation of miscommunication today.

Updates as of 9 Dec:

We welcome the neutral investigation by Lido DAO and are fully prepared to co-operate. We hope the Lido DAO will share their investigation findings publicly in this thread once concluded.

@Jenya_K shared our rebrand intentions, which have been in active discussion for some time. Out of respect, we still wanted to wait for your confirmation. Now that you have shared your dissatisfaction so acrimoniously in public, this has reinforced our commitment to proceed with the Delegate Thread rebrand as Governance Grove, regardless of the outcome of the investigation. The rebrand intent has been communicated internally weeks ago, and we are awaiting Jenya’s feedback on next steps to update the Delegate Thread name. Despite whatever has happened, we still credit WPRC for the genesis of this thread’s ideation.

The current multisig wallet was created by Joseph originally (whom you have collaborated with on a separate DAO proposal for WPRC), and he later added @Stakesaurus and myself as signers. @Stakesaurus is an Admin of the WPRC Telegram group. As such, I believe he can coordinate more closely with you, as Owner of the WPRC Telegram group, on this matter on wallet controls.

@Jenya_K has responded to this matter on declared conflicts of interest, and Sam has declared his interest here and in the Delegate Rallies organized by Lido Finance on X spaces:

Your statements: “Katherine Ng and her collaborator’s actions undoubtedly undermine the integrity and fairness of the Lido DAO Delegate Program”, “In light of the above, it appears that Katherine Ng and her collaborator, Samuel Chong (@Stakesaurus), may be exploiting this misrepresentation to gain financial benefits and influence through the Lido DAO Delegation Program, at the expense and risk of the WPRC, myself, and the Lido DAO” and “Thus, the integrity and character of its Delegates should reflect the gravity of this role. In light of the above events, and to avoid unnecessary damage to the WPRC and Lido DAO’s reputation and interests, I strongly urge the Lido DAO team to reconsider Katherine Ng’s Application and to rethink whether she is an ambassador of the values of the Lido DAO and the broader Ethereum Ecosystem” constitute defamatory allegations, as they falsely insinuate that I, and by extension my firm, Katashe Solutions, engaged in actions intended to secure financial gain and influence through the Lido DAO Delegation Program at the detriment of WPRC, yourself and the Lido DAO and infer negative conduct of Katashe and I, based on your own interpretation of events. Whilst I understand that your emotions are valid, these claims lack any factual basis, derived solely from your own speculative interpretation, and stand in direct contradiction to the transparent manner in which our professional activities have always been conducted.

To be unequivocally clear, at no point did I—or Katashe Solutions—undertake any actions with the intention of personal or professional enrichment to the detriment of the WPRC, yourself, the Lido DAO, or any other entity. Your assertions, as currently stated, are not only untrue but also unjustly harmful to my professional reputation, as well as that of Katashe Solutions. Such baseless accusations may cause material harm, both reputationally and commercially, and serve no purpose other than to mislead and cast unwarranted suspicion.

I hereby kindly request that you issue an immediate and public retraction of these defamatory statements. My venture builder and advisory firm, Katashe Solutions, prides itself as a firm that places integrity and trust at the forefront of its operations, and I will not allow these unfounded allegations to undermine our professional reputation. If these baseless claims persist, I will have no choice but to seek legal action to protect my professional reputation, the integrity of Katashe Solutions, and to address any harm your unfounded allegations have caused.

3 Likes
8

Dear @Jenya_K and Lido Community,

I think the best thing to do is move forward from here, to clear up the miscommunication involved in this thread. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, I would like to propose rebranding this thread from “Whitepaper Reading Club Delegate Thread” to “Governance Grove Delegate Thread.” @Stakesaurus and I will serve as the Governance Leads for the Governance Grove Delegate Thread within Lido DAO.

@Jenya_K, please let me know if there is anything I can do to change the actual thread header or otherwise address the concerns raised. Governance Grove looks forward to continuing its role as a Lido DAO delegate. @Stakesaurus and I remain dedicated to maintaining best-in-class governance. We are committed to researching and developing high-quality proposals and will continue to commit our support to Lido DAO as Governance Grove Delegates within our own firms’ capacities.

I respect the work that WPRC does to facilitate deep technical discussions on blockchain projects and wish WPRC the best. Katashe Solutions remains dedicated to fostering open and respectful discussions within safe environments and to enhancing best-in-class governance for DAOs and the broader blockchain industry. With every venture, Katashe embodies a relentless pursuit of innovation for the greater good, defining our identity not only through our achievements but also through the positive changes we create.

4 Likes
9

Hi Rongxin @WPReadingClub,

I am writing to address the inaccurate claims and provide a comprehensive account of the events.

@katashesolutions response pretty much captured the gist of the facts but let me provide even more context for everyone so that there is no doubt about our good faith and transparency.

1) On Conflicts of Interest
Let me start by addressing this. As @Jenya_K described, overlapping roles in DAOs are not unusual. In fact, it is often beneficial for active contributors deeply engaged with the protocol to have a stronger role in governance.

My role as a Lido Community Lifeguard has always been front and centre to how I am introduced (see our delegate post and delegate rally twitter spaces). As a matter of fact, my role was declared right at the “Introduction” section.

A simple Google search would have yielded all the details needed to know what this role entails in the first 4 search results (see screenshot below).

Screenshot 2024-12-09 at 11.51.03 PM
Screenshot 2024-12-09 at 11.51.03 PM1180Ă—1286 123 KB

I am always happy to provide additional fully-linked disclosures if needed.

1a) There are measures in place to prevent conflicts of interest where the issuance of grants by the Lido Community Lifeguards is concerned.

As part of our internal controls, each Lido Community Lifeguard discloses any affiliations with potential grantees on a per-grant basis and abstains from voting on the issuance of such grants. Additionally, no grants have been issued from the Lido Community Lifeguards Initiative to Governance Grove or the Whitepaper Reading Club to date.

Besides, any grants from this Lido Community Lifeguards Initiative (proposal here) are always reviewed by the Lido Community Lifeguards Initiative Committee, a Lido Ecosystem Grants Organization (LEGO) Sub-Committee with a â…— signing threshold, of which I am not one of the signers.

For transparency, reports on the grants disbursed can be found in the quarterly reports of the Lido Community Lifeguards proposal thread.

1b) While Governance Grove consists of only Katherine and myself, we will also abstain from any voting related to matters of compensation for myself as a Lido Community Lifeguard. However, this may change once the multi-sig quorum for our snapshot voting requires the participation of at least 2 additional members.

2) On “False Representation”
First of all, your proclamation as the “founder” of WPRC was never communicated to us. As far as I understand being one of the members who was present in the very first WPRC session, the WPRC is driven by volunteer contributors as a collective with a loose decision-making structure. Even your own Linkedin profile fails to capture this, mentioning only Head of Developer Ecosystem at Cobo as your only active role.

591Ă—1280 100 KB

That said, if you or even any member raised any disapproval, we would have gladly excluded the WPRC name.

This is evident from Katherine’s message to you and me below, showing our proactive-ness in moving away from the WPRC brand when you were radio silent to us for an extended period.

image
image583Ă—750 253 KB

Not to mention, you gave a “thumbs up” emoticon to my initial suggestion to explore DAO governance, using the example in the screenshot shared in a WPRC organising committee sub-group.

Screenshot 2024-12-10 at 4.20.56 PM
Screenshot 2024-12-10 at 4.20.56 PM2162Ă—1238 319 KB

As the self-proclaimed “founder” (which again, was never communicated to us) and in the absence of disapproval after an initial indication of support, is it fair to say we have “falsely represented” WPRC?

More screenshots highlighting your non-response below:

Our intentions were to contribute to building the collective WPRC brand in good faith through our efforts as DAO delegates and we maintained our collaborative approach to preserve the existing relationships within the WPRC community.

As described by Katherine in her post, we have always communicated transparently and included you throughout the entire process–from ideation, to drafting, to submission, and eventually to rebranding ourselves proactively when we could not get any response from you.

We have provided sufficient notice to you (assuming it was even needed in the first place) and there were multiple instances where you could have easily indicated your disapproval or that of other members on their behalf as the self-proclaimed “founder” to avoid this outcome.

  • Throughout the period from July 23rd to 14th August between the ideation and submission of the delegate proposal in the “WPRC SubDao WG” Telegram group which you are a part of
  • Between 1st September to 15th November when Katherine and I attempted to get in touch with you again across various channels to get alignment
  • From November 25 onwards when we pro-actively provided you a final notice before going ahead with rebranding ourselves entirely

Instead, you chose to make an untrue public post about this matter AFTER we communicated our plans to rebrand ourselves away from the WPRC branding to you.

3) On your defamatory allegations

“In light of the above, it appears that Katherine Ng and her collaborator, Samuel Chong (@Stakesaurus), may be exploiting this misrepresentation to gain financial benefits and influence through the Lido DAO Delegation Program, at the expense and risk of the WPRC, myself, and the Lido DAO” and “Thus, the integrity and character of its Delegates should reflect the gravity of this role. In light of the above events, and to avoid unnecessary damage to the WPRC and Lido DAO’s reputation and interests, I strongly urge the Lido DAO team to reconsider Katherine Ng’s Application and to rethink whether she is an ambassador of the values of the Lido DAO and the broader Ethereum Ecosystem”

Given the evidence I presented above, I suggest you retract these baseless allegations.

All my rights are reserved.

2 Likes