KVORUM
lidoSource: Snapshot · #0xd8222e979e92ef049b7f0a1984192781b065b24b6dc82aa9f889cbb2308fae5a

Should Galaxy continue in the Curated Module set following the acquisition of CryptoManufaktur?

succeededSep 5, 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

1,302 words

Summary

In July, it was announced that Galaxy had acquired CryptoManufaktur and communicated it to the community via the Lido research forums. As there is no formal process through which mergers and acquisitions of node operators are considered, a discussion on the forums of how to potentially consider the matter (including if there is any reason to act in an immediate fashion to pause or stop the node operator), as well as a historical review of previous instances took place. The result of the discussion was that the community and Lido Node Operator Subgovernance Group (LNOSG) did not see any reason to object to Galaxy staying on in the Curated Module as the successor to CryptoManufaktur. The matter being voted on is to formalize tokenholder acceptance of this proposal that “Galaxy should remain in the Curated Module”. At the time of the acquisition, CryptoManufaktur was an active Node Operator and still is (as “Galaxy”) at the time of writing the proposal.

Details

NOTE: Separately and independently to the matter at hand in this snapshot, an on-chain vote of an administrative nature also occurred, in which the requested changes to the Node Operator name and reward address to reflect the post-merger status has been passed.

Following the announcement of the acquisition, two things took place:

  1. A historical review of previous instances of NO changes (details below)

Historically, these are the changes that have happened in the Curated Set:

  1. A discussion around the formation of a first-principles approach to consider the impact and decision-making criteria of an NO merger/acquisition. The following suggestions were put forth:
  • it could be assessed whether, as a result of the business deal, there are material changes to validators’ operations (different people / different infra)
  • it could be assessed whether, as a result of the business deal, there are material changes to the organizational structure and “meta-properties” of the node operator (e.g. impact on geographic and jurisdictional dispersion of the operator set)

In the cases of substantial change in either or both of the above, community members and tokenholders may want to consider whether to:

  • ask the LNOSG (or anyone else) to conduct an appraisal similar to that during onboarding rounds and offer an opinion, after which it could vote on whether the operator in its new form should remain in the curated set (or a secondary option should be explored), and/or
  • directly move to pause (i.e., disable the allocation of new validators) or stop (exit and deactivate) the operator.

The responses from the Node Operator were as follows (the first response from Thorsten Behrens of CryptoManufaktur):

The infra for the validators remains as-is. I am hearing you that any material change (e.g. moving into cloud instead of baremetal) needs to be discussed with the DAO first. I don’t foresee such a change.

The people running the validators remain as-is for now. There will be a change in the medium term:

  • We intend to train Galaxy staff on our operations and add them to the maintenance/escalation rotation

The geographic distribution of the nodes remains as-is. For reference, we are in EMEA and APAC, an have no plans to move the infra. This, too, would require a discussion with the DAO before making any material changes.

The jurisdictional location of the operator remains as-is as far as I know, but I’ll let Galaxy chime in on it

  • The headquarters are in the US, no change there from CMF
  • Galaxy has offices in Europe, Asia and Canada - I do not know whether this impacts jurisdiction, or jurisdiction is strictly at HQ

The second response was by Zane from Galaxy.

We’re beyond excited to bring Thorsten and his excellent team into Galaxy. I’m happy to shed additional light on the acquisition and plans for the future.

1. As a result of our deal, confirming there are no planned material changes to existing validator operations. As Thorsten mentioned above, the goal is to preserve and further support CMF’s Ethereum staking operations – same team, same infrastructure set-up, same commitment to participating in the Curated and Simple-DVT modules and other strategic NO initiatives.

2. Also confirming there are no planned material changes to the organizational structure of the NO. Galaxy will be keeping legacy CMF operations intact – including set-up from a geographical / jurisdictional perspective. Galaxy, while headquartered in the US, is truly global with entities and offices across North America, Europe and Asia, and so will extend CMF’s ability to deliver services where required jurisdictionally.

Our goal is to further improve the provisioning of said NO services over time, with additional maintenance, business continuity + redundancy measures afforded by Galaxy’s globally-distributed engineering, networking, and operational support teams.

We absolutely agree that CMF’s Ethereum and Lido community impact have been exemplary, and thus view this acquisition as a means of pushing Thorsten and the team’s contributions even further. Galaxy’s plan is to take the non-blockchain work off of Thorsten’s plate, so that he can spend more of his valuable time assisting with core development and strategic initiatives.

We view the acquisition of CMF as (1) a means of accelerating our technical capabilities, especially in the Ethereum staking space, and (2) a show of Galaxy’s commitment to the development of the blockchain infrastructure ecosystem at large. We are working on developing best-in-class enterprise-grade (and certified) infrastructure for the largest institutions with Thorsten + team’s help, while also celebrating Thorsten’s commitment to the EthStaker / solo-staker community

The LNOSG, having considered the above plus some internal discussion and additional questions to Galaxy, opined that “the general consensus (with no objections) was that it suggests to the DAO that Galaxy Digital continue to participate in the Curated module.”

Proposal Actions

This proposal seeks tokenholder opinion on the suggestion that Galaxy remain in the Curated Module as a Node Operator following the acquisition of CryptoManufaktur.

  • A vote “For” indicates agreement with this proposal. If “For” wins, then essentially nothing in the status quo changes, and Galaxy continues to be an active NO in the Curated Module.
  • A vote “Against” indicates disagreement with this proposal. As the range of options of disagreement is very large, a vote “Against” entails that a discussion should take place to identify which possible options should be considered and brought to a following vote. These options may range from:
    • Setting a Target Limit to the Node Operator at their current active key count such that they do not receive new deposits pending further discussion
    • Deactivating the Node Operator (no more new deposits + no rewards) pending further discussion/analysis
    • Deactivating the Node Operator (no more new deposits + no rewards) and eventually removing the Node Operator from the Curated Module registry

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

Voters89
VP participating0
Outcome (current)For
Current support100%

06Voters

89 total
Filter:
VoterChoice% of totalRationale
4A0x4af8…6a0bFor026.05%—2y ago
810x8172…922eFor012.59%—2y ago
7E0x7ee0…bb6cFor010.01%—2y ago
6D0x6d8d…0cccFor07.87%—2y ago
510x510a…8d0eFor07.83%—2y ago
EE0xee44…fad1For07.18%—2y ago
LIlido.banteg.eth0x55bc…f0faFor07.18%—2y ago
C00xc006…8123For05.99%—2y ago
110x1109…43daFor04.07%—2y ago
6A0x6a39…4bd2For02.85%—2y ago
B90xb933…8dd1For01.91%—2y ago
7A0x7a59…8e22For01.85%—2y ago
A20xa2ff…7be9For01.26%—2y ago
E80xe80e…28e8For00.64%—2y ago
2C0x2cc1…4df1For00.56%—2y ago
870x8787…ea52For00.46%—2y ago
290x29b5…2c2fFor00.41%—2y ago
100x10a2…36f3For00.28%—2y ago
B30xb3ba…ebc5For00.28%—2y ago
E30xe3a3…bbb8For00.26%—2y ago
620x624d…2cd0For00.21%—2y ago
060x06a9…bba0For00.16%—2y ago
180x18ac…3a1aFor00.04%—2y ago
490x49f1…6cdbFor00.04%—2y ago
9E0x9e0b…da3aFor00.01%—2y ago
050x0579…4048For00.01%—2y ago
420x42e6…3fb0For00.00%—2y ago
610x617e…5265For00.00%—2y ago
7A0x7af3…8df3For00.00%—2y ago
4D0x4d26…7017For00.00%—2y ago
3D0x3d5a…b97fFor00.00%—2y ago
6A0x6afa…5deeFor00.00%—2y ago
3D0x3ddc…05b0For00.00%—2y ago
ED0xed95…68a6For00.00%—2y ago
CE0xce3b…2e55For00.00%—2y ago
520x5243…3440Against00.00%—2y ago
EC0xecc2…6ac9For00.00%—2y ago
C30xc34a…68c2For00.00%—2y ago
E60xe6b5…f1fdFor00.00%—2y ago
C10xc1c2…24f8For00.00%—2y ago
D30xd31a…1072For00.00%—2y ago
8B0x8bc8…7276For00.00%—2y ago
500x500f…7d0bFor00.00%—2y ago
C40xc48b…75b6For00.00%—2y ago
C90xc9f6…78b2For00.00%—2y ago
D50xd5d7…3c4dFor00.00%—2y ago
270x2748…ac26For00.00%—2y ago
960x968a…d19cFor00.00%—2y ago
080x08ab…8fd6For00.00%—2y ago
5A0x5a2c…fdcfFor00.00%—2y ago
Showing 50

07Forum

No forum thread is confidently linked to this proposal.

08Similar proposals

AI · embeddings

No semantically similar proposals found yet.