Hey, great read!
I’m largely in agreement with Goal 1 and Goal 2. I believe the priority you’ve assigned is appropriate, particularly given Goal 1’s significance in relation to the initial allocation of LDO. Given this allocation, it seems plausible that certain proposals might be pushed through by individual entities. This is a genuine concern, especially when considering actions like minting $stETH or altering the withdrawal contract. However, I feel that dual governance might be an effective solution to this issue.
Regarding this, don’t you think it might lead to overcompensation for economic security, while also reducing the economic bandwidth of $ETH as a collateral asset? For instance, when it’s used to back decentralized stablecoins, I question if staked ETH is the most optimal way to allocate the asset. I’d be keen to hear your perspective on this.