First of all, thank you for taking this on Entropy. Reading through the thread it seems to me that it would be beneficial to address two issues separately:
A. What should the GMC optimize for?
- stable and safe returns
- ecosystem support
- a combination of both with a fixed % allocated to ecosystem support as suggested by @CastleCapital
B. How were the options evaluated?
An idea could be to rank the options against certain dimensions and share the overview. This would increase transparency of the decision making as the trade-offs are clearly visible - initial but by far not exhaustive list:
- APY
- Liquidity of yield
- Risk (also qualitative with low, medium, high)
- Max % of TVL of a certain pool/vault the DAO allocation can be
- Arbitrum aligned protocol (yes/no)
Even if some attributes e.g., whether a protocol is Arbitrum aligned or not will be a best guess from Entropy at first, if a certain option fits all criteria there will be a discussion around whether it is Arbitrum aligned or not. If the option is anyways not interesting (e.g., to be extreme: low APY + high risk + 90% of TVL), then there is no point arguing about it.
→ what do I want to say with it? Ranking options across dimensions will result in a more focused discussion vs arguing about options as a whole.
Lastly:
On Lido (used to be full-time with Lido hence views might be biased, but read below and DYOR):
-
the team is one of the most Ethereum aligned I have ever met - feel free to check out on CT: @adcv_, @ssaintleger, @_vshapovalov, @Lomashuk @ncerovac, @isdrsP
-
the centralization backlash Lido has been getting is partially unfair:
- Lido currently has > 50 large Node Operators
- one of the protocol’s main goals (and heavily pushed by founders) in 2024 was to roll out the CSM (community staking module allowing you to operate a Node with 1.5 ETH), currently there are >450 CSM module operators and its continuously growing
→ personally I am more worried about ETH staked with CB (who fully owns its Node Operators)