[DIP-59] — Amendment to and Extension of DIP-31: Network Stewardship Efforts & Budget by SSV Labs

Proposal Summary

This proposal amends and extends [DIP-31] Development Roadmap for 2025-mid-2026 by SSV Labs (hereinafter: “DIP-31”), as previously amended by [DIP-53]. DIP-31 funded an engagement that commenced on January 1, 2025. This proposal extends it to June 30th, 2027, so that DIP-31, as amended, covers the period from January 1, 2025, to June 30th, 2027, narrows its scope as of July 1st, 2026, and restructures the remaining installment.

SSV Labs proposes to the ssv.network DAO (hereinafter: “DAO”) to continue providing network stewardship efforts for the ssv.network protocol (hereinafter: the “Protocol”) for the period commencing on June 30th, 2026 and ending on June 30th, 2027 (hereinafter: the “Extension Period”), extending the term of DIP-31 so that it runs from January 1, 2025 to June 30th, 2027 (hereinafter: the “Grant Term”).

The Extension Period has two parts. In the first two quarters, from June 30th, 2026 to January 1, 2027, SSV Labs shall deliver the network stewardship roadmap set out below. In the following two quarters, from January 1, 2027 to June 30th, 2027 (hereinafter: the “Maintenance Period”), SSV Labs commits to maintenance of the Protocol.

The first two installments under DIP-31, covering 2025, are unchanged. For 2026, SSV Labs requests 1,500,000 USDC. For the first half of 2027, SSV Labs requests 2,700,000 SSV tokens, with 1,000,000 SSV payable initially and the remaining 1,700,000 SSV subject to an option that either converts to USD or is paid in tokens across monthly installments. This structure is aligned with requests made by the community and DAO contributors to waive or defer the third installment under DIP-31 already due. The Finances section sets out the schedule.

This proposal also grants SSV Labs a first-ranking security interest over 900,000 USD held by the SSV Foundation.

Motivation

This proposal suggests amending DIP-31 to extend the engagement on narrower terms.

Due to current market conditions and the DAO’s financial position, the efforts funded here are limited compared to previous years and plans. They are focused on maintenance rather than an expansive roadmap.

SSV Labs handles maintenance for the Protocol implementation, the network’s fork-readiness, the live mainnet smart contracts, and every operational and user-facing surface. The first half of the Extension Period carries two mandatory network upgrades and the checkpoint-sync work that Ethereum’s history expiry makes unavoidable.

The third and final installment under DIP-31, 1,736,111.11 SSV, has not been paid. The commercial arrangement shall be revised and restructured, as set forth in this proposal.

Proposal Particulars

Network Stewardship Roadmap

The roadmap covers the first two quarters of the Extension Period, structured as two quarterly milestones and the ongoing work listed below.

Q3 2026 (July – September)

1. Boole network fork — testing and rollout. The Boole fork is an upgrade of the ssv.network protocol that requires a coordinated, mandatory update by every network staker and operator. The implementation is complete and in final review. The remaining work comprises:

  • a three-stage acceptance test — normal operation before the fork, the fork transition itself, and normal operation after the fork — run on dedicated test networks with multiple operators, currently in progress;
  • compatibility testing between the two client implementations, with every test run producing a report that records the exact software versions tested and the results, kept as a permanent record;
  • a staged rollout: a rehearsal of the fork on the public test network (Hoodi), in which both client implementations participate on their own infrastructure, followed by the scheduled mainnet fork, a mandatory operator release, release notes, and operator communications and support throughout the fork window; and
  • an automated reporting system that continuously shows, feature by feature, whether each implementation meets the fork’s acceptance criteria. This system will serve every future network upgrade.

The milestone is complete when the mainnet fork has taken place, all operators run the mandatory release, and no regressions affecting validators have occurred. The final fork date is set once the compatibility testing between the two implementations is complete.

2. Glamsterdam (ePBS) readiness — Ethereum hard-fork compliance. Ethereum’s next hard fork changes the duties that validators perform. The Protocol must implement, test, and ship support before the fork reaches Ethereum mainnet; for a live staking protocol, this work is not optional. The Q3 programme comprises:

  • implementation of the three new validator duty types (code substantially complete and in final review);
  • a dedicated test suite for the fork transition itself — the point where errors are most likely — together with validation of all post-fork duties on local test networks;
  • updates to the node’s internal duty-processing pipeline (E2M) for the new duties, with further updates tracked against Ethereum’s design changes as they continue to land; and
  • a single node release that supports both the pre-fork and post-fork interfaces, together with updated support for the latest Ethereum libraries and clients.

The Q3 portion is complete when all new duties are validated on local test networks, the transition test suite passes, and the implementation is ready to join the public test network in Q4.

3. Checkpoint sync — node startup and recovery. A node currently syncs by replaying every contract event since deployment. Ethereum’s history expiry removes the old chain history that this path depends on, so it is closing; without checkpoint sync, new operators would have no standard way to join. Checkpoint sync replaces replay with the import of a recent, signed snapshot of network state. The specification is published as a SIP and is in community review; implementation begins once it is accepted. Unlike the two forks, this ships as an optional feature in a regular node release and requires no coordinated network upgrade. The Q3 work is to drive the SIP through review to acceptance, then begin implementation of snapshot generation, verification, and import, with conformance tests on the existing test infrastructure. The Q3 portion is complete when the SIP is accepted, and implementation is under way.

4. Staking migration — operations and monitoring. The ongoing staking migration is operated and monitored continuously by the core team: tracking each migration’s state, detecting anomalies, supporting operators, and intervening where migrations stall or misbehave.

Q4 2026 (October – December)

1. Glamsterdam fork execution. Participation in the fork on the public test network, a mandatory operator release, support through Ethereum’s mainnet fork window (currently expected in Q4 2026), and post-fork stabilization. As with every Ethereum hard fork, this is a network-critical, deadline-driven programme whose dates are set externally.

2. Checkpoint sync — completion and rollout. Complete the implementation, validate it on local multi-operator test networks, and roll it out through the regular release process: public test network validation, inclusion in a node release, documentation and operator communications. Rollout timing depends on when the SIP clears review; since no coordinated network upgrade is required, it can ship in any regular release.

3. Continued network stewardship. All ongoing work set out below runs through Q4 unchanged. Q4 additionally absorbs the follow-up from both forks: remaining operator upgrades, support for the last operators to move, and post-fork monitoring.

Ongoing work (every quarter)

Area What it covers
24/7 network monitoring & incident response Round-the-clock monitoring of network health, validator performance and operator availability, toward a target of 99.95% of validator duties performed successfully; alerting, incident response and incident reviews, staffed through an on-call rotation across the core engineering team; operator health tooling (the Pulse health-check and log tools).
Node maintenance & releases Regular node releases: bug fixes, security patches, and keeping dependencies and Ethereum client compatibility current. Every change is reviewed by multiple engineers and passed through automated testing. Includes release engineering, release notes and operator upgrade support.
Smart-contract stewardship Upkeep of the live mainnet contracts: monitoring, incident readiness, triage and remediation of security reports, and maintenance of the contract code, which is frozen to new features.
Protocol specification review & implementation Review of protocol improvement proposals (SIPs) affecting the ssv.network and implementation of accepted changes. Deliberately reduced in scope under this engagement: review and implement, not a research programme.
Web properties & tooling The network explorer(s), the web application, the developer tools (ssv-keys, ssv-dkg, ssv-scanner and the SSV SDK) and the documentation — kept current, secure and compatible with node and contract releases.
Testing infrastructure The local multi-operator test network (SSV-mini), the fork-simulation tools, and the automated system that reports whether each implementation meets the acceptance criteria — the shared backbone that makes the two fork milestones executable and repeatable, built once and serving both client implementations and every future upgrade.

What this proposal does not include

No development of new products or protocols is included in, or compensated under, this proposal, and it neither includes nor amends any marketing or project-promotion budget. This proposal represents the work required to keep the ssv.network running, safe and compliant with Ethereum’s own upgrade schedule.

Finances

Compensation is split across the periods set out below. The first two installments under DIP-31, covering 2025, are unchanged.

If this proposal were to pass, the ssv.network DAO Multi-Sig Committee (hereinafter: “MC”) will send 1,500,000 USDC to the SSV Foundation in the first scheduled batch of January 2027, and 2,700,000 SSV in the first scheduled batch of July, 2027, subject to the terms of the Conversion Option detailed below, to be held by the SSV Foundation for payment to SSV Labs.

After receiving each transaction, the SSV Foundation will effect payment to SSV Labs within thirty (30) days, or for the installments at the times set out below, to the address 0xB0B83C72AD8cA979bDDD4f0BD3777c42C4a67CFE; SSV Labs retains the right to notify the SSV Foundation to execute the transfer to another wallet address.

Conversion option. Of the 2,700,000 SSV payable for 2027, SSV Labs is granted an exclusive and discretionary option (hereinafter: the “Conversion Option”) to receive 900,000 USDC instead of 1,700,000 SSV, on the following terms:

(i) Amount and Price. The Conversion Option is valid as a whole only: 1,700,000 SSV of the 2027 payment for 900,000 USD.

(ii) Exercise. SSV Labs will have to notify the SSV Foundation regarding the Conversion Option at least five (5) business days before the first scheduled batch of July 2027, by written notice from SSV Labs to the SSV Foundation.

(iii) Settlement. Occurs within thirty (30) days after the notice under (ii): the SSV Foundation shall pay 900,000 USD in USDC.

(iv) Balance. SSV converted under the Conversion Option is fully discharged on payment of the 900,000 USD, and nothing further is due in respect of it.

(v) Installments. If SSV Labs does not exercise the Conversion Option, the MC transfers the 1,700,000 SSV to the SSV Foundation in six (6) equal monthly installments of 283,333.33 SSV (the last amounting to 283,333.35 SSV), in the first scheduled batch of each month starting in July 2027, and the SSV Foundation transfers each installment to SSV Labs within twenty-one (21) days of receiving it. The installments are a payment schedule only.

The table below summarizes the above text for convenience, while the latter prevails in case of contradiction:

Year Compensation Payment
2025 Paid under DIP-31 Unchanged by this proposal; settled already
2026 1,500,000 USDC First scheduled batch of January 2027
2027 2,700,000 SSV First scheduled batch of July 2027. 900,000 USD of this amount may be taken in USDC under the Conversion Option above. If it is not, that part is paid in six (6) monthly installments, starting in July 2027.

Operational

If this proposal were to pass:

1. Amendment and extension. This proposal amends and extends DIP-31, as amended by DIP-53. The term is extended so that DIP-31 runs from January 1, 2025 to June 30th, 2027. The scope of the engagement is replaced by the roadmap and ongoing work set out above; and the payment schedule and sums are as set out in this proposal. All other provisions of DIP-31 remain in force so far as they are consistent with this proposal.

2. Term. The Grant Term runs from January 1, 2025 to June 30th, 2027. The efforts under this proposal run over the Extension Period, from June 30th, 2026 to June 30th, 2027.

3. Security over the indemnity-program funds. SSV Labs is granted a first-ranking security interest in the amount of 900,000 USD. The SSV Foundation may deploy the secured funds for yield generation through permitted venues; the security follows the funds into whatever form they take, so that 900,000 USD of value stands charged at all times. Yield, any value above that amount, and all other assets of the SSV Foundation are not charged and remain at the SSV Foundation’s free disposal. SSV Labs may apply the secured funds toward the 2027 payment described in the Finances section, and its recovery under the security is capped at 900,000 USD.

4. Execution of the security. The DAO authorizes and directs the SSV Foundation to negotiate, execute, and deliver a deed of fixed charge creating the security and any ancillary documents, and thereafter to take any and all steps required to give it effect, including transferring assets in the value of the 900,000 USD to the designated wallet, restricting its deployment to the permitted yield venues to be set out in the deed, maintaining the secured balance and the effectiveness of the charge. No further DAO approval is required for the SSV Foundation to do so.

5. Authorization. The DAO fully and irrevocably empowers, directs, and authorizes the SSV Foundation, on behalf of the DAO, to draft, execute, sign, and deliver a binding agreement, and any other documents it deems necessary and appropriate, to facilitate the efforts detailed in this proposal and their payment, and to create and perform the security and the Conversion Option set out in the Finances section.

6. Continuity. After June 30th, 2027, SSV Labs will retain the ability to provide these services uncompensated until such time as a new proposal is proposed.

5 Likes
  1. With limited stablecoins left after the 1.5M USDC payment and network fees going to stakers, minting looks like the main way to cover the ~1M+ SSV shortfall under DIP-59. Could the Foundation share an estimate of total SSV issuance through December 2027, and has returning part of network fees to the treasury been considered?

  2. We understand why the security interest gives SSV Labs certainty in this market. Could the Foundation explain what the ~$900k Indemnity Funds currently cover, and confirm whether Labs can draw on them only when exercising the Conversion Option?

  3. Could the Foundation publish a projected treasury balance as of July 1, 2027, assuming DIP-59 passes? Early thoughts on sustaining maintenance after June 30, 2027 would also help the community plan ahead.

1 Like

Hey @h.m.23-0NEinfra,

These are excellent questions! Answers inline.

Yes, minting is the primary income source. Fortunately, we started the year with a relatively large treasury (see MoC Report: Update on the 4-year DAO Budget [Evergreen]), which has allowed the DAO to operate without any token emissions since April 2026 in direct response to market conditions. The DAO continues to keep emissions as low (basically zero) for as long as possible.

Given the IMP expenses, grants, and Foundation funding, we expect to operate at zero inflation for another 3-6 months. Without the labs grant, we’ve estimated around 13.54% inflation for the next 12 months.

This relatively low inflation rate assumes extra income from DIP-52 and a potential participation of the DAO in SSV staking (a low single-digit percentage). This requires a DAO vote, and nothing is decided yet, but it is the base case.

The $900k Indemnity Funds were set aside long ago to protect the SSV DAO Multisig against legal claims. However, the regulatory landscape has changed significantly, risk has decreased, we have more clarity, and we believe we can put these funds to work (yield generation and collateral). The Foundation also signed for D&O insurance to protect Multisig members independently of the $900k. SSV Labs can only draw on the funds when exercising the conversion option. We’re enforcing this with a Safe setup that prevents either party from moving the funds outside the conversion.

Here’s a projection we just finished, assuming the current treasury size, the DAO’s SSV staking, approval of the Labs grant, and the massive cost-cutting the DAO and the Foundation have already implemented.

TL;DR: The base case is to have a fully funded 2027 with the inflation rate as low as described above and enter 2028 with a USDC balance of $551.7k, which would guarantee a fully funded 2028, assuming the market stays the way it is (rather bearish).

Let me know if you have more questions. Thanks a lot!

3 Likes

It looks like we have a roadmap for the 2nd half of 2026, but that is mostly over. Do we have a development roadmap for 2027?

Just to set expectations, it sounds like there may be minimal budget available for improvements to the Explorer and web tools. The proposal calls out “kept current, secure and compatible with node and contract releases.”

That’s a shame, since the Operator Committee periodically revisits the user interface and would love to see some improvements, particularly around the areas of operator comparison and selection. We also would love to see improvements in notifications for both validators and operators, particularly where an operator is offline or underperforming, or where a validator needs to update their operator set.

I do like the checkpoint sync. It’s almost impossible to run a full operator node on a 2TB drive now, due to the growing size of the execution database. Being able to prune that will be very helpful in managing the cost of node hardware, but it can only happen when the SSV operator supports it. (Anyone else buying $1,000 4TB drives lately?) That said, is the Sigma Prime / Anchor team aware of the checkpoint sync initiative? It would be best for them to implement it as well.

I’m a little worried about the timing of the Glamsterdam Fork updates. Would SSV have been ready if the Hoodi fork had NOT been postponed? I feel we are cutting the deadline a little too close.

As to the overall fee for 2027, I see two things at play:

  • The basic fee is 2.7M SSV tokens for 6 months of development, currently equal to roughly $6.75M (at $2.50 per SSV)
  • There is an option to receive $900K instead

That’s a pretty large disparity. But I imagine it’s mostly an insurance policy in case of SSV token price collapse disaster.

I do feel like I have very little visibility into what the actual operating budget of the labs looks like, and what the money is being spent on. That would be very helpful in evaluating whether $6.75M is a reasonable and appropriate fee. I presume that is the kind of input being requested, and I’m not sure we have the data we need to make an informed decision. Is it possible to share that information?

3 Likes

Thanks @BenAffleck for the quick, transparent answers, and especially for sharing the projection. And +1 to @GBeast’s questions on 2027 roadmap, Glamsterdam timing and visibility into Labs’ budget. A few follow-ups building on both, meant to help the DAO get to a well-informed vote:

  1. Reading the 2028 slide. If I read it correctly, 2028 opex ($38.7k/month) covers the Foundation and marketing only, with no Labs or second-client line. So “fully funded 2028” refers to the DAO’s own operations, and protocol maintenance after June 2027 (including any Ethereum forks in 2028) would need new funding. Is that the right reading? If so, it seems worth starting that planning now.

  2. Resource split and offloading.

  • Building on GBeast’s request for budget visibility: at minimum, could Labs share an approximate split of effort and spend across the workstreams in the proposal? In particular, how much goes to protocol-critical work (node, forks, contracts, security, monitoring) versus user-facing and supporting surfaces (web app, explorer, SDK, docs, tooling)?
  • Given the 2028 picture, this should help the DAO plan which work must stay with a core team, and which could move over time to community contributors, small grants or the second client team. MonitorSSV is a good example: it has delivered cluster alerts, liquidation tooling and SSV 2.0 dashboards on micro-grants. Would Labs be open to identifying candidates for that kind of handover during the Maintenance Period, with Labs as the transition partner, so users get more at lower cost after June 2027?
  1. Delivery to date. Since the H2 2026 roadmap is now largely behind us, a short status update against each milestone would be very helpful: Boole fork, Glamsterdam readiness and checkpoint sync SIP. As this proposal partly funds work already done, a delivery report would make the vote much easier for delegates.

  2. Payment structure.

  • Could you add a simple table mapping each payment (1.5M USDC, 1M SSV, 1.7M SSV/$900k) to the period it covers and to the unpaid 1,736,111 SSV installment? The summary mentions 1M SSV “payable initially,” but I couldn’t find it separately in the Finances schedule.
  • A small clarification on the option: as I read it, it swaps only 1.7M of the 2.7M SSV. At ~$2.50 that puts H1 2027 at roughly $3.4M (converted) to $6.75M (in tokens). Could Labs share how 2.7M SSV was arrived at?
  • If the option is exercised, is the $900k paid from the indemnity funds? Are those outside the $360k reserve shown for 2028? The footnote suggests the 2028 reserve went from $2M to $360k, and it would help to see how much of that change comes from the 1.5M USDC payment.
  1. Treasury follow-ups from my first post.
  • Has redirecting part of network fees to the treasury been considered? Given the 2028 picture, it looks like the main lever for paying for maintenance without minting.
  • Is the 13.54% inflation figure in addition to the Labs grant, or does it already include it? What would total SSV issuance through December 2027 be in absolute terms?
  • What SSV price, staking yield and DIP-52 income does the projection assume, and how does it look if SSV falls further 50%?

Thanks again. The narrower scope and the payment-in-arrears structure are steps in the right direction, and these questions are meant to help get this to a strong, well-supported vote.

2 Likes

Given all the AI bugs and hacks that have been discovered lately across the crypto space, I’m thinking that SSV needs to do some serious red-team hacking to ensure the SSV operators do not have undiscovered vulnerabilities. This should be addressed in the proposal.

2 Likes

Hey @GBeast! Good point!

The DAO still runs the Immunefi Bug Bounty program with significant funds and receives many reports each week, which the DAO and Labs screen immediately.

We’ve just recently confirmed 6 reports and paid out around $50k to whitehats/red-teams.

Despite the program’s scope, the Node software also receives reports because everything is tightly coupled.

The SoW that the Foundation will sign with SSV Labs has a SLA structure in place that requires SSV Labs to adress all bug reports through immunefi within that SLA structure. So, this is in the agreement.

Do you think the DAO should do something else? Increase the price-pool, move to other platforms, etc.?

TYVM!

2 Likes

Thanks @GBeast and @h.m.23-0NEinfra for your questions.

I’ll leave most of those for @Ivan to answer.

Here’s what I can address from @h.m.23-0NEinfra:

  1. Reading the 2028 slide. If I read it correctly, 2028 opex ($38.7k/month) covers the Foundation and marketing only, with no Labs or second-client line. So “fully funded 2028” refers to the DAO’s own operations, and protocol maintenance after June 2027 (including any Ethereum forks in 2028) would need new funding. Is that the right reading? If so, it seems worth starting that planning now.

Correct! “Fully funded” means that we have a solid, stable reserve to cover regular operations, excluding grants for one or more clients. 2028 is still relatively far away, so we need to observe closely. The primary goal is to shield the token from excessive inflation and delay spending until the market is more favorable. Worst case, the market stays as is or weakens further, which raises the question of whether we can afford more than one client, and what that client is allowed to cost. AI progress might help here, but it’s too early to say. The good news is that if we pass this proposal, we’ll have most of 2027 covered, and we’ll still be able to build a small reserve and stay in the game. With all the shutdown announcements recently (i.e., Diva Staking, Balancer, …), we believe we’ve done a solid job navigating this difficult market. I can’t think of any other action we can take, but I’m always open to hearing suggestions. I’m optimistic, but it’s a difficult time for crypto.

Treasury follow-ups from my first post.

  • Has redirecting part of network fees to the treasury been considered? Given the 2028 picture, it looks like the main lever for paying for maintenance without minting.

Yes, it has. There’s a lot to say about this, and we’ll propose a dedicated proposal in the next few months to let the DAO join staking operations to some extent. For now, I can say we’re working on this and will call for feedback once we’re ready. Technically, if the market stays so weak into 2028, the DAO could stop the IMP and take 100% of the network fee, which is anywhere between $2-4M a year. The question is how much stake we would lose by stopping the IMP, and whether SSV should become a public good at that point. Let’s pursue a viable business model first (observe 2027) and then decide the project’s future. What makes me happy is that we always have the option to convert SSV into a public good (e.g., let solos run for free, use excess from network fees to assign stake to public operators, etc.). Too early to say, but we have options.

  • Is the 13.54% inflation figure in addition to the Labs grant, or does it already include it? What would total SSV issuance through December 2027 be in absolute terms?

It’s on top (but covers the IMP!). The DAO’s biggest expenses are the IMP and the Client grants. Both have variable calculations and terms that adjust to market conditions, so it’s hard to project total inflation through the end of 2027. I think everyone can do the math easily, but reality will likely be different.

  • What SSV price, staking yield, and DIP-52 income does the projection assume, and how does it look if SSV falls a further 50%?

The DIP-52 income is relatively low, as we’re playing it safe. We’re looking at around 3.7% APR. Depending on how aggressively we put funds to work, we might look at around $50-100k yield a year.

Almost all of our agreements and programs have an SSV floor price built in, shielding us from hyperinflation if the alt sector drops even harder. I’d say we could survive even with a 50% drop, but it will be difficult. It’s just my personal opinion. SSV staking yield is skyrocketing (36% right now, paid in ETH), which I find crazy high. Yet we don’t see much buying pressure because of that, and it tells a story about the state of the market. I’m happy we’ve chosen this model because it gives SSV token holders massive yield and a reason to hold the token. If ETH thrives, but the SSV token doesn’t, the yield will explode by definition. If both thrive, it’s a win-win. If nothing works, it is what it is.

These are mixed responses, I know. Some are my personal opinion, and some are backed by the data the Foundation has and the planning we do. The bad news is that we’re completely dependent on the market as a whole, and we have nothing to show to stand out on its own. The good news is that we have a runway that keeps us in the game for a good while, and even beyond, we can always convert the business model into a public good model, thanks to real fees being paid in ETH.

1 Like

Heya @h.m.23-0NEinfra @GBeast!

Thank you for commenting on our grant!

I’ll try to address both of your guy’s concerns in one go.

The timeline of the grant is January 1st 2025 to June 30th 2027. Since the DAO already paid both payments for 2025, the proposal doesn’t dwell on 2025 and only discusses 2026 onward. In 2026, a very strong desire was communicated to us by the DAO to not request SSV so as to minimize minting of SSV to a minimum. As Ben posted, it is possible that the DAO will have a small amount of stablecoin left in 2027 which is why we requested SSV for 2027. If the DAO at any point wishes to rediscuss this, we are always open to it.

In 2026 you have seen staking that was part of previous proposals meaning that we needed to provide our efforts for the second half of 2026 and beyond. In this timeframe, you are correct that less features will be worked on than in the previous grants but the development that has to be done is still substantial . This was also a long standing request from the DAO that we adjust our grants, which inherently adjusts the services we provide. The same goes with the desire to fund part of the development as an option from the indemnity funds, which, we are flexible if its from the indemnity fund or otherwise, if there’s another pool, we’d be happy to look at that too.

As far as any fork is related, our professional standards will be upheld like we have done in the past, so there’s nothing to worry about there.

Do note that the desire to see costs is something that a for profit company cannot provide.

2 Likes

Voting is now live :vertical_traffic_light:
https://snapshot.box/#/s:mainnet.ssvnetwork.eth/proposal/0x40629de3f1aa80d3565e3cd6cd91ccbe419b3823a3d86d7bad31ec014175a820

@spookyg
@h.m.23-0neinfra
@chainupgov
@hashkeygov
@monitorssv
@flo
@ethernodes
@hackworth
@yuting
@lemmagov
@damon
@fod
@derfredy
@llifezou
@dsrvgov
@sigmaprime
@axblox
@allnodes
@gbeast
@markoinether
@mickael
@kenway

Voting no because the proposal never says which payment covers which period, and the 1.7M SSV looks like the unpaid 1,736,111 SSV DIP-31 installment. If that’s right, and Boole is the topology fork DIP-31 already promised, that payment should release when Boole hits mainnet, not on a calendar date. Spell that out in one table and I’ll vote yes, because a first-ranking charge on the indemnity reserve shouldn’t secure a number nobody seems to explain.

1 Like

Voting is live and so this comment is a bit late. And also, Devcon 2026 shifts priorities.

PQ pubkey registry for validators should land with Hegotá. Through Nov and early Dec 2026, core devs will decide whether PQ readiness becomes the priority for hard forks, potentially to be shipped as early as 2027, maybe slipping into 2028. Radically cut hard forks that push PQ to the exclusion of other features.

In the following two quarters, from January 1, 2027 to June 30th, 2027 (hereinafter: the “Maintenance Period”), SSV Labs commits to maintenance of the Protocol

At best, this puts SSV behind. PQ pubkey registry with Hegotá in July/August, probably. Then potentially exit of all validators that are BLS-only by end 2027 / beginning 2028; or maybe a more relaxed timeline by end of 2028.

The worst case scenario is that going into maintenance-only mode puts SSV so far behind that it doesn’t have a safe path to PQ threshold signatures by the time they’re needed.