So a few people have asked me about the executives for this week and last week. I’m going to outline here what we’re going to do and why:
This weeks executive will not include any of the contents from last week.
A couple of people asked me if this was possible. It is possible, but @prose11 and I feel that it’s not the right move, for a number of reasons.
- It kicks the can down the road, next week we might be in the same situation, and wanting to stack 3 lots of executive into one. This is bad. The more things we stack up, the more likely there is to be something in the stack that someone has a fundamental disagreement to.
- It’s not fair to Protocol Engineering. In order to facilitate this, they need to make last minute changes to the executive content that increases risk and may prove to be completely unnecessary.
- It covers up for what is probably a failure in governance due to apathy. This is not any of the core unit’s jobs. If governance is failing, then governance must be exposed to the consequences of that failure with respect to loss of partnerships, or impact on token price.
- It prevents the expression of what might be (probably isn’t in this case) a legitimate signal from governance that they do not want the contents of any given executive.
We will not publish this weeks executive until Monday (to give the current exec more time to pass)
- This decision is mostly contrary to the points made above, but we feel there are extenuating factors.
- Several large MKR Holders have expressed their intention to vote, but have not yet done so.
- No large MKR Holders have made their intention to withhold their vote on this executive due to contents clear to the community publicly, or GovAlpha privately.
- The contents of the executive drew wide approval at the polling stage.
- We were a day late with last weeks executive, due to the last minute fix.
We (GovAlpha) will continue to try to get MKR Holders to communicate some sort of decision related to the executive vote (be it positive or negative.)
- I guess this is part of our job now, not much to say about this one.
We would like the community to consider having a two week cycle for executives.
- Not much to say about this one either. PE floated the idea, it might give people more time to vote.
- Downside is that it means execs might be more complex or harder to produce.
- We’ve yet to discuss this among the mandated actors, so we’re not sure where we stand on it at this point either.
For stuff that doesn’t end up passing.
- If any given executive doesn’t pass, we’ll try to stick to a roughly consistent way of handling the contents.
- We feel that inclusion in at least one future executive may be warranted in the case where there is no significant on-chain opposition to the change at the polling stage. This would default to the next available executive (but not the consecutive one.)
- If something is very contentious at earlier stages, it may be forced to repeat earlier governance processes before it warrants another inclusion in an executive.
- Budgets will probably be an exception until we can sort out DSSVest. This is because the impact of them not passing has the potential to be a significant setback for the DAO (potential for Core Units quitting, or just not working for a month.)
One final note on apathy for large MKR Holders. I imagine this doesn’t apply to most of those reading this.
Apathy will eventually lead to negative outcomes that negatively affect the value of the MKR Token. Some of you have millions of dollars of capital at stake here.
Death from a thousand cuts is just as real as death from an undefended governance attack. Both are serious risks that I feel have become more likely in the past few months.