wstETH on Avalanche and BNB and Ownership Acceptance by Lido DAO

I am honestly a bit speechless by what I’m witnessing here. All of the involved parties are burning quite a bit of goodwill in my eyes through what must be described as sketchy sales tactics.

By unilaterally deploying a bridge and marketing it in an official-seeming way, it feels like you are trying to pressure the DAO into accepting your proposal to avoid liquidity fragmentation and bad UX for users. Driving users to it through marketing makes accepting an alternate bridge proposal more painful. These actions put the DAO, Lido stakers, and participating chains in a difficult position.

LayerZero’s solution might be the best one, but it should be evaluated

  1. at the DAO’s pace and timeline
  2. according to agreed-upon specifications
  3. alongside other vendors’ proposals
  4. and with ample time to evaluate their security

I don’t think this proposal should go to Snapshot in its current form, and if it does, I will vote against it and recommend others do the same. Again, it might be the case that LayerZero’s bridge is the optimal one, especially for other L1s where trustless bridges are impossible. But this is not the way to run this process, and we should first do a public retro on what happened and then run it back properly.