Maker governance is still in a beautiful early phase - call it springtime. One defining feature of such a early phase is that there is little separation between roles in the organization nor much in the way of hierarchy. Maker is however outgrowing this phase at a rapid pace and there could be time for a move towards a slightly more conventional structure. The amount of information that needs to be processed is steadily increasing and putting Maker governance under stress.
How did we end up in this situation? Largely because of two things: first of all because decentralized organizations have never really done much delegation and second because on a strategic level the Maker Foundation provided the long term guidance needed. As a result the Maker community was stuck with what remained, which has largely been day-to-day operational issues. The net result is the governance we have today.
When stressed organizations have two options: either automate or delegate. The first steps towards automation are already underway in the form of MIP27, I will in this article argue we start doing the same with regards to delegation.
My motivation behind this is simple - the need to scale. With the present state of affairs Maker is not able to onboard more than roughly two types of collateral per month, which is far below what we need in order to dethrone Tether. Simply taking the present process and multiplying it will not be sufficient as Maker governance voting is already an expensive clickfest and multiplying this x10 or x20 is simply not workable. Therefore we need to both delegate and automate.
A spoonful of delegation will remove the issue of voting for proposals that sail through with 95%-100% of the vote anyway, an easy picking with regards reducing the overhead cost of Maker governance. It will also empower Domain Facilitators and so facilitate future automation in their respective domains.
I hereby propose MIP_delegation_of_authority for a pre-MIP discussion. The MIP empowers Domain Facilitators to send specific issues straight to Executive Vote, bypassing the Governance Poll. Which issues? The typical issues that get close to 100% of the vote anyway. I plan to detail this with Domain Facilitator input if this pre-MIP passes. One example are Oracles where I have yet to remember an oracle proposal that did not go through. Another is Collateral Onboarding where the bad apples can be separated out by anyone that did not invest in OneCoin. I want to delegate my voting power to the Risk Team on this issue, I fully trust them to do the right thing. At the moment all the November 30 polls fall into this category where the onboarding of renBTC, 6s Capital and Uniswap as well as whitelisting of Yearn are all looking to be approved with respectively 99.85%, 100%, 98.7% and 100% of the vote. Let’s streamline this!
The MIP_delegation_of_authority is not imperative, meaning Domain Facilitators are free to subject decisions to a Governance Poll if they feel the decision is important or potentially divisive.
- Other - please explain