I appreciate the detailed reply, and it’s nice to see that we’re at least directing readers to look to the same discussions in the forums regarding this issue.
If Lido’s growth is throttled, or if some measure passes like the one you wrote that removes block production from Lido in a way that renders an attack literally (rather than just practically) impossible the I will welcome a future proposal, but that’s clearly not where we are now.
While I understand that Lido is a DAO and theoretically not centrally governed, looking at your Snapshot it is clear that in almost all of the proposals 2 out of the 3 following addresses have had enough voting power to render all other participants irrelevant:
-
0x8b1674a617F103897Fb82eC6b8EB749BA0b9765B
-
0xE017a4e967c9939d01628E805DC0CC3370184e63
-
0x458075B1AAa3A9E24503786091090547116B5f81
These actors and indeed all of those currently taking part in Lido may well be acting in the best interests of the protocol, but that doesn’t detract from the delegitimizing effect of your dominance over the Beacon Chain.
While we both referenced the discussion within Lido’s forum’s regarding self-limiting, it is clear from the current vote that this is not going to be passed:
As is always the case, token holders will vote in their personal short term interests rather than for the greater good of the wider ecosystem. This is a case in point of why Optimism’s governance model is designed around 2 houses, one built from token holders and one from citizens, the latter of whom will be able to vote without their influence being directly proportional to the incentives of their tradeable tokens.
Perhaps the simplest way to look at the issue for those delegates who are unsure on this is to compare the motives of people making up the two sides of the debate. Almost all of those claiming that Lido doesn’t represent a threat are people who stand to gain from Lido’s continued growth. On the other hand those raising the alarm such as SuperPhiz, Vitalik and Danny Ryan do not gain from the wider adoption of their position or from Lido’s reduced dominance.
It is difficult to avoid the obvious analogies between tobacco companies claiming that smoking isn’t linked to lung cancer, or to oil giants funding campaigns disputing the effects of fossil fuel use on the climate. One side’s position in each case is clearly not motivated primarily by the goals of maximizing public goods but by maximizing profits.
I can’t have much effect on the wider problem that Lido represents to Ethereum’s legitimacy, but I intend to use any influence I have in Optimism’s governance to ensure that at the very least we do not contribute to making it worse.
I apologize if this comes across as overly confrontational, but there are times when I think that is a necessity, even when, as I said above, I don’t believe you or your team are trying/intending to act as a threat.