KVORUM
lidoSource: Snapshot · #0x74eaaca973a0a2f3b661e344b64d953e6061eb35d119faf396f348a484c9948f

InfStones Return to Active Status Proposal

succeededMar 21, 2024, 04:00 PM UTCsignaling · non-bindingbyDB0xdbbc…1cb6View on Snapshot ↗

01Summary

AISummary by Kvorum

An AI summary is not generated yet. Read the description →

02Description

487 words

This proposal is a followup to the previous vote (in December 2023) regarding InfStones resuming active participation in the Lido Node Operator set (link to the vote), which ended with a lack of quorum for any option and generally leaning towards the operator re-activating but with some voters opining that additional time was required.

In the time since, InfStones have worked with a third party information security consultant (https://carbidesecure.com/) to perform penetration testing on their infra, specifically targeting the issues identified in the original infrastructure vulnerability disclosure. The executive summary of the pentest has been provided to the DAO (https://research.lido.fi/t/lido-on-ethereum-node-operator-infstones-platform-vulnerability-investigation-november-22-2023/6001/23), and the detailed report was provided to DAO contributors who requested access, as well as a SOC 2 Type I report. Follow-up questions were submitted by contributors and responses were received. Currently, contributors feel that there is no reason to believe that the relevant infrastructure vulnerabilities are still present, nor that any other known vulnerabilities have not been adequately remediated and/or resolved.

A summary of events follows below:

On Nov 22, Lido DAO contributors were made aware of two platform vulnerabilities in the validator infrastructure of one of the Curated Set Node Operators (InfStones) that utilize the Lido on Ethereum Protocol.

As a result of the mutual understanding of the potential implications of the vulnerabilities, the Node Operator volunteered to exit the validators out of an abundance of caution. The stake for the 10,001 validators that they were operating completed flowing back through the Lido on Ethereum Protocol through the Lido Withdrawal Vault and was automatically allocated to pending withdrawals at the time or other node operators.

InfStones has posted a response on the Lido research forums indicating their understanding and approach regarding the infrastructure vulnerabilities; and has stated that the relevant gaps have been remediated. Additionally, InfStones have set up a bug bounty program that covers their infrastructure, and have also completed a SOC 2 Type I audit using an external third party, and have now also completed a pen-test with a third party, with the results to be shared with the DAO.

As a result, InfStones is looking to ask the DAO the following:

Is the DAO satisfied that the Node Operator has appropriately remediated the issues in their infra such that InfStones can resume active participation in the Curated Operator Set?

Voting Instructions

This is a single-option vote.

  • If you believe that the Node Operator has shown enough evidence that the vulnerability has been remediated and can resume submitting keys in a guarded fashion, vote “For”.
  • If you believe that the Node Operator should be removed from the Node Operator set, vote “Against”.

Next Steps

  • If the “For” option reaches quorum, then the Node Operator will resume key submission at their convenience and raise their validator limit in a guarded manner.
  • If the “Against” option reaches quorum, a separate on-chain vote will be required to deactivate the Node Operator.

03Mismatch analysis

AIMismatch analysis by Kvorum

A calldata-vs-description analysis is not generated yet. Review the decoded actions →

04Actions

0 total

This proposal carries no on-chain actions.

05Tally

Summed from votes

Voters230
VP participating0
Outcome (current)For
Current support100%

06Voters

230 total
Filter:
VoterChoice% of totalRationale
4A0x4af8…6a0bFor020.51%—3y ago
D10xd1c7…0aaeFor015.01%—3y ago
7E0x7ee0…bb6cFor09.28%—3y ago
D20xd2dd…a7b7For09.25%—3y ago
AE0xae09…256bFor07.44%—3y ago
6D0x6d8d…0cccFor07.13%—3y ago
510x510a…8d0eFor07.06%—3y ago
LIlido.banteg.eth0x55bc…f0faFor06.66%—3y ago
110x1109…43daFor03.78%—3y ago
CB0xcb8e…fef0For03.70%—3y ago
1F0x1f38…b7b3For02.89%—3y ago
B90xb933…8dd1For01.77%—3y ago
7A0x7a59…8e22For01.25%—3y ago
A20xa2ff…7be9For01.17%—3y ago
E80xe80e…28e8For00.59%—3y ago
A60xa620…2eafFor00.44%—3y ago
110x116a…41b9For00.39%—3y ago
290x29b5…2c2fFor00.38%—3y ago
B30xb3ba…ebc5For00.26%—3y ago
E30xe3a3…bbb8For00.24%—3y ago
AA0xaa44…507eFor00.19%—3y ago
4C0x4c26…fab1For00.19%—3y ago
3D0x3d63…4afcFor00.11%—3y ago
780x78d1…753aFor00.09%—3y ago
BA0xba03…a59fFor00.08%—3y ago
490x49f1…6cdbFor00.03%—3y ago
E40xe445…27afFor00.02%—3y ago
5D0x5dd7…97edFor00.02%—3y ago
0A0x0a54…f4c9For00.01%—3y ago
2B0x2b1d…8a42For00.01%—3y ago
9E0x9e0b…da3aFor00.01%—3y ago
880x8845…53f5For00.01%—3y ago
610x617e…5265For00.01%—3y ago
7A0x7af3…8df3For00.00%—3y ago
DB0xdbbc…1cb6For00.00%—3y ago
3D0x3d5a…b97fFor00.00%—3y ago
520x5259…f0cfFor00.00%—3y ago
0F0x0fad…1d32For00.00%—3y ago
520x5243…3440Against00.00%—3y ago
A90xa908…c4f4For00.00%—3y ago
8B0x8b8f…63d5For00.00%—3y ago
6C0x6cc1…9415For00.00%—3y ago
5E0x5ecc…4036For00.00%—3y ago
6A0x6a2d…03e0For00.00%—3y ago
E60xe6b5…f1fdAgainst00.00%—3y ago
530x53c4…3584For00.00%—3y ago
950x95e9…444eFor00.00%—3y ago
3F0x3f2d…ce6bFor00.00%—3y ago
EB0xeb0e…a99dFor00.00%—3y ago
D30xd31a…1072For00.00%—3y ago
Showing 50

07Forum

No forum thread is confidently linked to this proposal.

08Similar proposals

AI · embeddings

No semantically similar proposals found yet.