✅ Deploy Preview for ethereumorg ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	f538802
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/ethereumorg/deploys/67a32eba39b3a60008fab4ba
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-14825--ethereumorg.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
Lighthouse	7 paths audited Performance: 43 (🔴 down 5 from production) Accessibility: 95 (🟢 up 3 from production) Best Practices: 89 (🔴 down 9 from production) SEO: 98 (no change from production) PWA: 59 (no change from production) View the detailed breakdown and full score reports

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

Now that Lido is setting a new precedent (as any leader in an industry tends to) - I think it makes sense for this categorization to move from a binary to a percentage (or approximation so that it doesn't change so often). "Permissionless nodes" used to refer to whether the entire validator set was permissioned or not. There may have been smaller liquid staking protocols that floated outside this (e.g. Stakewise V2) but the reality is that the liquidity simply was not there for it to matter about recategorizing.

For this new era of Lido with the CSM - I believe simply changing "permissionless nodes" from 'no' to 'yes' would mislead casual users to believe that the entire Lido validator set is simply "permissionless" rather than "has a minority permissionless set".

So my suggestions are any of the following:

1. Create a new product for Lido CSM and label it permissionless
2. Refactor the criteria to be an approximation or percentage

I realize this will be controversial among Lido contributors based on Twitter interactions but I believe ethereum.org aims for maximally accurate education and we should constructively figure out what's most appropriate for users to compare across protocols. CSM is a great step forward and the work the contributors have put it should be congratulated, but it should not be conflated with the order-of-magnitude-larger permissioned module.

Now that Lido is setting a new precedent (as any leader in an industry tends to) - I think it makes sense for this categorization to move from a binary to a percentage (or approximation so that it doesn't change so often). "Permissionless nodes" used to refer to whether the entire validator set was permissioned or not. There may have been smaller liquid staking protocols that floated outside this (e.g. Stakewise V2) but the reality is that the liquidity simply was not there for it to matter about recategorizing.

IMO this is revisionist history, especially so when in your own reply you admit that these supposed standards were not followed for another case (Stakewise v2) but essentially saying that "well, this time it's different". Liquidity has not been a concern in the application of this criterion, and even if it were, the reasonable argument would have been that Stakewise v2 should not have been given the checkmark (just because they were... small, seriously?). It's not different; the precedent is clear. If a protocol allows for permissionless entry (at all), then it should get the permissionless check mark. For this process to be fair, the permissionless checkmark should be given just as it has in the other cases historically and then create a separate issue / initiative around reconsideration of how the criteria should be assessed holistically. If you want to educate users with minimal effort then you can very easily add a tooltip that reflects the % of TVL of each protocol that's permissionless and if you want to be accurate you should additionally inform how many total validators (i.e. how much stake overall) this represents, and do it consistently for each and every protocol on this list.

If you want to aim for maximal truth and accuracy, you need to refactor the entire set of categories and criteria. Until then, you should follow the precedent you've set and stop playing favorites with community resources that aim to be neutral. There are a lot of things that need updating here (including how "trustless" some of these protocols really are, which I've delved into at length previously and you folks did nothing about), and by the same logic you're arguing for here we should come up with criteria to determine e.g. how liquid a token is in order for a project to get a checkmark vs just whether a liquid token is available or not. While we're at it, we should also add criteria that represent how well distributed validator and node operator sets are across the globe, whether protocols use DVT, in what share, and what the total presence is on the network.

I shared my thoughts here: https://x.com/Butta_eth/status/1886684695959679216

Lido CSM is permissionless. Lido is not. They are two distinct products.

Splitting it off into its own product would definitely give the wrong impression—that staking with CSM is fully permissionless while the rest of Lido isn’t. But that’s not how it works. Users stake with Lido, get stETH, and their ETH flows into both CSM and other modules depending on availability. That’s an important distinction because Lido is designed as a system where different modules work together under the same staking mechanism. A separate category could create the false impression of a hard divide when, in reality, it’s a unified system.

If the criteria are going to change, that’s up to the site maintainers and beyond the scope of this PR. I can only ask that this PR be reviewed based on the current criteria, which seems like a fair request.

Lido CSM is limited to a 2% share.
There is no published plan when this will increase.
Anyone trying to join CSM will see that it's impossible for his keys to activate in any reasonable time frame.
Early adopters of CSM are also unable to activate all of their keys, because there was only a 90-minute window to add them, mostly used up by whales.
I suggest that this be merged once >51% majority is permissionless.
Currently 97.53% of Lido is centralized.

@corwintines giving this a friendly push. If you are blocking on redefining the "hasPermissionlessNodes" parameter I'm fine with waiting for you to figure out how you want it (as I'm guessing it would be a parameter that applies to all pools) I'll gladly update the stats again after.
I would like to push the other changes i made though, like EL/CL diversity stats and updated audits. Let me know if you are fine with that.