6s - Broker/Dealer - DAI Address

At present, the FINRA regulated Broker/Dealer has insisted on maintaining its confidentiality clauses in its agreements thus these agreements cannot be made public.

RWA Company LLC is in possession of the original agreements and can represent the content. These agreements are made a part of the Escrow Agreement which is in turn a part of the Credit Agreement.

6s has thus far strived for complete transparency, there are scenarios like this where public posting simply will not be possible at this time.

To that end, RWA Company LLC and the Protocol Engineering team (@cmooney) has each independently verified the DAI addresses and the below points:

  • The transfer instructions cannot be amended

  • There are three agreements and each was countersigned.

  • DAI address (to Genesis) - 0xE5C35757c296FD19faA2bFF85e66C6B25AC8b978

  • DAI address (back to Maker) - 0x486C85e2bb9801d14f6A8fdb78F5108a0fd932f2

(Which was the same as outlined here.)

The following community members have seen the agreements and can verify the same:

Community members:

The above was not intended to be a legal review rather community members attesting to the DAI addresses.


I attest to the 4 bulleted claims mentioned above.


I witnessed and I provide Confirmation of the statement above.

1 Like

I have seen the signed agreements mentioned. DAI Addresses match the ones in the documents.

1 Like

Same here.I have seen the signed agreements mentioned. DAI Addresses match the ones in the documents.

1 Like

I can attest that the statements made in the bulleted points above are correct with respect to the signed documentation I saw.

1 Like

I can confirm that I saw documents that contained the 4 points listed by @mrabino1. However, I will make the point that this satisfied me largely because I’ve judged Matt to be trustworthy in our interactions so far, rather than because of the documents themselves.

I would be extremely reluctant to comment on these at all for any party that wasn’t @mrabino1, just because I feel that there are lots of layers at which deception could be introduced by an untrustworthy party that wouldn’t be easily detectable by someone with my level of expertise.

If the signed documents could be made public, this would allay these concerns to some extent, but I understand that this was not possible in this case.

Basically, my point is that someone trying to push illegitimate documents would probably want to do the following things:

  • Prevent the documents from becoming public.
  • Draw attention to ‘key points’ in the documents to avoid careful scrutiny of the illegitimate parts.
  • Avoid detailed and effortful scrutiny of documents by attesting parties (e.g sharing them via screenshare on zoom, etc rather than transferring files).
  • Seek attestations from those without the expertise to be able to effectively judge legitimacy.
  • Exploit sunk-cost to change expectations close to ‘zero hour.’ (Initially assert that all docs can be public then on the final step say that certain docs cannot be public and that we can only move forward with private documents.)
  • Undermine the perceived character of individuals within the DAO who are best placed to raise flags about the project.

TL;DR, I’m not sure this is a scalable and secure practice in the future with parties that the DAO is unfamiliar with, and I don’t like it much.

In this case, Matt has included @williamr and @christiancdpetersen who presumably have more expertise than me, and are better able to judge legitimacy. This, and the number of community members that have been shown these documents helps mitigate my lingering concerns.

In conclusion, my intuition of the cost-benefit calculation for onboarding 6s is that the expected value is positive. The DAO stands to get a lot of benefits if this works. Matt feels trustworthy. It would be a massive effort for 6s to come this far only to run off with the money, seems much more likely that Matt’s legit. Downside can be limited using the debt ceiling, etc.

(Sorry @mrabino1 for the complexity to this response. I know you were probably hoping for something more definitive from me.)


Do you foresee them being public in the future?

Also and that’s more to satisfy my curiosity, are there “deep” reasons for the broker dealer to not want those documents public? How is that different from disclosing their substance?

I confirm that the statements made in the bulleted points above coincide with the signed documentation I saw.

1 Like

I want to echo a sentiment here. The nature of how this works is difficult to deal with openly due to the nature of disclosure and 3rd party trust required. I have spoken personally with @mrabino1 at length and agree there is a sense that this guy isn’t here doing this work to run off but to build a RWA empire and he really wants to build a generalized bridge to RWA that is solid as a rock and so it can be a template for others to follow.

I am somewhat used to reading legal documents and law in various states (not international just US state based) and a lot of this stuff IS NOT easy to wade through. It is easy to purposefully obscure basic things in lengthly legal contracts to make them easy to miss.

It has always been my position that Maker can start with a low DC see how things work, try to get some revenue in the pockets, and then arrange for NDAs to be signed with other legal advisors to go over the paperwork in detail (think of this like a smart contract review by review teams except it would be by not one but probably at least two independently contracted legal teams as well as whatever expertise the RWA CU team can muster). This stuff isn’t going to be cheap, and it isn’t going to be fast, but I believe if there is one person or company Maker can work with that imo seems to have strong integrity it is @mrabino1 and 6s.

I would like to know who are the legal counsel that has RWA experience that RWA CU has lined up or IS lining up for these legal reviews not just of 6s structures but all the RWA structures so far. Literal dot i’s and cross t’s here. I would really like to see a legal risk assessment regarding the contractual and collateral structures, jurisdictional issues, results of tabletop event scenarios to know that some significant effort has been put into a good look at where these legal structures are weakest and where they are strong.


I know lawyers don’t work for free, but just a reminder to all that the primary docs can be accessed here at any time. We’re working on a perma-web deployment as well.

1 Like

Shearman & Sterling is helping us with the New Silver/Centrifuge audit. Ogier is our Cayman counsel and was kind enough to authorize the publication of a summary on the 6S Cayman part. We also have Latham & Watkins for global matters (used for SolarX but @christiancdpetersen is doing most of the heavy lifting as project finance lawyer himself).

No further legal review of 6S is planned at this stage.

This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.