🚀 Core Unit Launch Pod Sessions ||| Session #20: Sidestream Auction Services

:rocket: Core Unit Launch Pod Sessions ||| Session #20: Sidestream Auction Services

CULPS is celebrating the big 2-0 with a double feature this week!

For the 20th episode of CULPS, Daniel Kremerov (@danik) will be presenting the Sidestream Auction Services Core Unit, whose purpose is to improve security and transparency of the Maker Protocol by providing auction service through open-source development.

Join us on a new day, with the same host. @juan will be hosting a special Thursday edition of CULPS to sneak in Sidestream before Liscon next week. :slightly_smiling_face:


Time in your local-timezone format:

Mark it on your Google Calendar!


When the time is ripe, follow this Zoom link :link:

Or use this information:

Meeting ID: 829 4277 3725
Passcode: COREUNIT
Find your local number:Zoom International Dial-in Numbers - Zoom

attn: @SES-Core-Unit, @GovAlpha-Core-Unit, @Growth-Core-Unit, @Content-Production, @gov-comms-core-unit, @Oracles-Core-Unit, @Risk-Core-Unit, @Protocol-Engineering, @Real-World-Finance, @MakerMikeP, @Coulter, @twblack88, @ElProgreso, @PaperImperium, @planet_x, @inkymaze, @MakerMan


Core Unit Launch Pod Session - Episode #19

October 13th, 2021


  • 00:00: Intro Juan Guillén
  • 00:32: Discussion with Vamsi Alluri
  • 56:50: Outro




Juan Guillén

Agenda and Preamble


  • Hi to everyone. Welcome to the Core Unit Launch Pod Session. My name is Juan, and I am the facilitator of SES CU at Maker. I am here with people interested in Maker. This is episode #19. Today we are joined by the Deco Fixed Rate solution, and they are going to be explaining a bit more what Deco is and their proposal in the forum.
  • For other episodes of CULPS, please check the forum.


Vamsi Alluri



05:59 - A D: How are fixed rates set? For example, Institutional Vaults set a fixed rate. How did they do that? Do they took the current stability fee and negotiated down from there? Are you saying this would provide more information in these decision-making environments?

8:06 - David Utrobin: Through the TLM, the rates are set via Maker Governance. Whereas with Deco, the claim fee token price is discovered on the free market. Is the free market setting the rates or Maker?

12:52 - A D: The reason the vote is not proceeding is that people are concerned that these are yield tokens. Yield tokens, similar to DSR, represent some potential regulatory risk. Could this be structured so that the concerns are abated and irrelevant to the product?

14:18 - A D: In terms of the growth strategy, you have already spoken to both Growth and Oasis. Can you talk about your conversation with Oasis?

15:49 - A D: We currently have the floor for the Dai debt that qualifies an Institutional Vault, and it is 200 million. Right now, there is not a means to have a scalable on-ramp. Nadia suggested implementing Deco to turn Institutional Vaults over to them and use it as a way to on-ramp smaller users so that they can have scalable means. Do you think that this could meet that requirement?

17:22 - David Utrobin: Is the fee token a yield token? Is there a regulatory risk?

19:13 - David Utrobin: You talked about the claim fee tokens having rate discovery in a free market. Where does that happen if you abstract it all away in the CDP Manager?

23:44 - A D: One thing that was overlooked in this proposal is your current collaboration with PE in the Sandbox project. Most voters are not aware that by funding Deco in this proposal, Deco will be the first external integration written into the core of Maker smart contracts. Part of what will come out of this is the first processing procedures in collaboration with PE and SES to enable parallel smart contract development, which is a pretty significant blocker and a feature that would be added. Could you talk about this?

28:17 - Rune: There is tension around the proposal as it is proposed with the fixed and performance payments. But also concerning the concept of competition between the different proposals and the concept of an official Maker fixed-rates designation and what that means in terms of favoring one project over the other. These dynamics are important to consider. Can you talk in that direction?

31:48 - Bruno: Could you go through the fixed costs? Is it a plan of three years, and is there a fee share? Can you give some details?

35:18 - Rune: Is it two million for a three-year period? Is this the salaries?

37:01 - Rune: What is the MKR amount in total?

37:40 - Rune: The cash is the salary that is doing the work. Does the MKR represent the bonus and it is the value that you are providing to Maker and sharing?

38:08 - Rune: The point is that eventually, this turns self-sustainable. There are two options. The communist option where Maker buys it out and runs it as this native thing that is the official Maker fixed-rates and status. That is where Maker goes for economies of scale, pays it all, does it all, and focuses everything on this approach. The other option is more of a free market. You took the risk in creating this proposal and bringing it to governance. Now you will fully de-risk the actual work or the next three years of building and integrating and setting it up. From there, it has been set up a fixed-rate protocol that has a team attached to it that is getting a profit share. Their goal will be to integrate that everywhere, spread it, grow it, maintain it, so they can keep getting that profit share over time. When this profit share thing is in place, an additional implicit negotiation has to occur, an expectation that is part of it, which is Deco protocols integration into frontends around the ecosystem to the extent that Maker can influence that. If we assume that Maker cannot influence that, then this does not matter. Oasis will integrate whatever they want, whenever they want to integrate. Because it is a private company, they will integrate whatever gives them the cheapest rate. How much of Maker’s stability appetite is funneled into this thing? This directly impacts the performance fee that you get. There is also a connection between that and the marketplace you create on the other side of people buying into it. Because Maker wants to lock in its fixed rates into the different markets. What do you think of that?

46:47 - Rune: What happens if Maker voters decide to off-board the CU?

49:50 - David Utrobin: If we were to not go with Deco, for example, and go with Pairwyse or TLM. How do we do it? Do we give Growth this initiative? Would they need their CUs? What is the best path for Maker from a business standpoint? So far, Deco has the incentives and everything kind of right, and I like where it is going.

53:24 - David Utrobin: Although Deco does not need PE in the same way the others might, would Deco still need to engage PE during solution design coordination? Is it that no matter what, there will be overlapping coordination that has to happen?

56:34 - Juan Guillén: Vamsi, what is the best way to reach you if there are any questions or comments?

Closing Comment

Juan Guillén



  • Thank you to all for coming. It was great having you. See you around.


  • Kunfu-po produced this summary.
  • @gala produced this summary.
  • Everyone who spoke and presented on the call, listed in the headers.

The full call is now available for review on the MakerDAO Youtube Channel: