Updates & communication

  1. Has the relay operator generally done an above adequate job to keep the DAO and Node Operators apprised of changes, developments, and operational issues related to the relay? (eg via the Lido research forum or in designated comms channels (eg shared groups))
    1. Yes

Revenue

  1. Have there been any significant changes to the relay funding mechanisms which should should lead to the relay application generally being reconsidered?
    1. No

Testing

  1. Has the relay made any serious product changes that were not adequately tested on testnet first?

    Yes, there were some hotfixes that were likely made directly in production, as the timeline isn’t immediately clear, relating to the MEV-boost exploits which occurred in April 2023.

    1. If so, were there exigent reasons for this, and was this adequately and promptly communicated to the community?
      1. Yes, it was communicated both in public (eventually) as well as in chats between node operators and relays (more timely)

  2. Has the go-live of these serious changes made it to production, and has it been adequately assessed to not negatively impact performance of operations such that moving the relay from “may include” to “must use some” would not adversely affect the overall validator set?

    1. While there was bumpy performance and numerous changes made in the following two weeks, the issues affected the MEV-boost relay code bases at large. At this time, it seems that most relays have returned to normal, and the specific relays were not inordinately affected as compared to existing relays on the “must use some list” (such as flashbots).

Post-addition relay performance

Please compile and refer to a relevant performance analysis if possible

Please see ‣

  1. Based on relay performance while it’s been on the “may include” list, is there any serious reason to not promote the relay to “must use some”?

    No

  2. Were there any incident or degraded performance reports from Lido Node Operators while using the relay that were not adequately explained, addressed, or compensated (where relevant)?

    No