- At a high level, the Dai Supply is over 300 million Dai from ETH-A. About 2.7 million from BAT. ~50 Million from USDC and ~67 million from WBTC.
- As far as ETH-A supply goes, this has continued to grow. You can track spikes and plateaus in the growth rate, which correlates to different yield farming opportunities.
- We saw a continued base linear trend until early July 2020, where we saw a bit of a spike when the first yield farming opportunities cropped up.
- Then we saw a massive acceleration due to the YFI type opportunities (Early August), which have slowed in the past week.
- No recent project announcements in the last week have been too crazy in terms of Dai farming, at least compared to say 3-4 weeks ago. We will continue to watch as more of these opportunities continue to crop up.
- The USDC<>Dai supply since mid-July has been fluctuating a bit day-to-day. It is heavily used by large individual users making potentially short-term transactions. The long-term supply has stayed around 50 million. Trending upward, but very spikey - will continue to watch.
- WBTC is not entirely capped out. There is still about 13 million room in the DC there. There are these step-wise usage trends due to large users making transactions and capping it out. The amount minted is still sitting at around 66 million but has not been capped out. It is unclear if that is the amount of demand for minting Dai from WBTC that has already been met, or if there will be an increase as it has only been a couple of days.
- BAT usage has varied with close to 3M Dai minted from BAT.
- Zooming in more recently, it seems that a decent percent wise of that DC is utilized, and is, seemingly, well managed.
- Collateral portfolios: we have seen that the ETH collateral portfolio has gotten a bit less risky but also ETH price has gone up. In nominal terms, users have not done much with their collateral there, but naturally, the collateralizations have been pushed up.
- If you look at the ETH price around $240, you’d be liquidating 132 million Dai, and this is the largest wall. Probably the most significant thing to keep in mind and manage.
- Smaller walls are around $285 and $330 is not worth mentioning. You want to be decently concerned around an ETH price of $285. Even given a 400+ million Dai supply, a 33 Million liquidation is probably still significant for the amount of market liquidity out there.
- Another thing to keep in mind, the Dai price needs a perception adjustment. There were some crazy slippage events on August 10th on Uniswap and Oasis. Overall, in the last few days, there has been a lot more a sustained $1.01 price rising into the $1.02 range. This condition is a steady-state situation that we have been talking about prior; we’ve seen price rises to $1.03 or $1.04, even $1.06 during crazy events such as yield farming opportunities arrive. The presupposition is that we would resume normal levels when the yields come back down a bit, and that’s basically where we are at.
- We’ve seen relatively large trading volumes in the last seven days between Dai<>ETH and DAI<>USDC. I don’t want to belabor too much; we’ve gone over the broad strokes and can double click on the things that we need to.
- Of the 400 Million Dai, roughly 247 million is locked into the DSR by supplying to protocols and then being locked back up.
- If you look at Compound, this is still a lion’s share chunk, with 250 million. Dai in Compound is dominating what is currently going on with the Dai supply.
- Monet supply: I’ve been emailing back and forth with someone from Gemini about gUSD, so if anyone has any questions that they would like me to pose to them, please let me know or reach out to me in the forum or what have you.
- Aaron: What are the next steps for LRC now that it has failed?
- LFW: Good question. The first is attempting to find out why it failed in the first place. There is always a chance that whoever voted it down will say something. Other than that, by the MIPs process, you can resubmit the same proposal or subproposal up to three times, without significant changes. If we wanted to, we need to process it again in the next cycle we could. I wouldn’t suggest doing so until we have some idea of why it was voted down or another person professing to be a large MKR holder wants to see it again as an emergency.
- If there are meaningful changes in liquidity or other things that can affect the risk parameters, it can trigger a re-evaluation. I don’t think this will happen immediately, though.
- Frank Cruz - How do we have any idea how to encourage more voter participation? (Hopefully, when there is no yam 2.0)
- Chris p: I’ve seen people complain about the cost of people voting. And I’ve seen this is a governance project to combat this hurdle of small MKR token holder engagement.
- LFW: Good point. Gas prices are going to prevent most small MKR holders from voting, I would think. Derek from the foundation is working on a new version of the governance dashboard, which I believe may include batch voting to allow for votes toward multiple things in one transaction. I think that may help, at least.
- I think there have been a couple of posts on this topic in the forums. For instance, El pro posted about voters being reimbursed transaction fees incurred when voting. I’m not sure how it would work in practice, but it is worth discussing.
Loopring and Voter Participation
- FC: I think that Loopring was a big disappointment. Specifically, because people put in some time and work into it, I think it was six individuals, and one individual with 17,000 MKR decided, as Cyrus said earlier. I won’t give my opinion, but I think we need to encourage more people to participate in the polls and somehow encourage them whether there are high gas fees or if we moved to L2, just to get them up there to vote. Or even post their opinion on the forum - the reason why they didn’t vote or the reason why they voted.
- LFW: I think these are all excellent suggestions. It’s the sort of thing that I think, or I hope, that significant vote motion like this happening can help large Maker holders that if they don’t vote for things like collateral onboarding, then there is a good chance that something doesn’t happen. I kind of agree that it is disappointing since the LRC failed AFTER the work finished even though it passed the greenlight poll initially. But there is always a chance like this happens; the smart contract/risk/Oracle evaluations can change opinions. That is always that possibility.
Signed Transactions in Governance Calls
- (chat from Aaron): "What is wrong with doing signed transactions in gov calls?
- LFW: I don’t know, I haven’t thought about it. Would defer to someone else.
- Josh Levine: It’s something we explored and something that we thought we would do the first time. The only thing that you lose is censorship resistance; whoever is aggregating the signatures can censor something. But what we are exploring now is the case where you do that as the happy path where you signed messages, and if someone suspects any censorship, then they go to on-chain as a fall-back.
- LFW: That sounds potentially great. I think we’ll call it there and thanks to everyone for joining. Hope to see everyone next week
Links from Chat
MCD System Stats
DAI 24hr VWAP Graphs
Maker Vault Stats
Common Abbreviated Terms
MCD: The Multi-Collateral Dai system
CR: Collateralization Ratio
DC: Debt Ceiling
ES: Emergency Shutdown
EV: Executive Vote
GF: Governance Facilitator
GP: Governance Poll
SF: Stability Fee
DSR: Dai Savings Rate
MIP: Maker Improvement Proposal
- Artem Gordon produced this summary.
- Juan Guillen produced this summary.
- Gala Guillen produced this summary.
- Tim Black produced this summary.
- Anatta produced this summary.
- Everyone who spoke and presented on the call, listed in the headers.