Discussion: Disengagement

Hello all.
A few of you have seen me around before, but you’ll probably note that I’m not very active. I can tell you that I haven’t been very interested in MakerDAO, and I don’t have very many incentives to engage with the system or the community. I mean sure, there’s SourceCred, and I could sit here all day lighting up the forums and potentially raking in some good Dai.

But to be truthful, I don’t want to. It seems as though it is soul-crushingly pointless. Nothing has really has changed since Black Thursday, we’re still in a precarious situation rushing things through, I think without sufficiently considering the consequences of those actions. I mean, the Risk Team apparently thought it was OK to have more than half of our Dai backed by a single type of collateral–correct me if I’m wrong but I believe we moved to MCD precisely because that’s a terrible idea for maintaining price stability and independent monetary policy. And yet we forged ahead and did it. Thankfully it seems to not have blown up in our faces from what I can tell, and we seem to be backing away from that cliff, but it very well could have gone south for us and that would likely have been an ES–assuming the whales would let that happen. Not likely.

As far as voting, there doesn’t seem to be much point; if what we want to do doesn’t align with the whales, then it doesn’t happen. I mean, hell, we’re having Vault Compensation Plan 3 being discussed. There shouldn’t even have been a second one, and the fact that we’re on number three still with no compensation given to victims of the Black Thursday event shows to me that the system is broken and no longer serves its users. The whales run the system, we just use it and pretend to govern it.

To be clear, I don’t have financial reason to be saying these things, as I was unaffected on Black Thursday. I’m speaking from what I’m seeing, and I’m trying to give reasons on why I don’t feel a desire to engage with the governance system at all.

Does anyone else feel like they’ve no reason to actually take an interest in governance?

There are a lot of very interesting things going on withing MakerDAO, but that is my subjective opinion.

Even if you don’t have a lot of MKR, I think anyone can have a significant impact by sharing good ideas. If you’re fascinated by MakerDAO, you may find you have some of these.

But if the inner workings and management of MakerDAO aren’t things you find very interesting, maybe that is OK?

I don’t mean to discourage you, but it’s not the kind of thing that suits everyone.


Perhaps I mis-phrased, my apologies. I am interested in governance, though often I feel as though I’m not given a reason to since it seems kinda stressful and thankless for little to no tangible benefit. I’ve shared a few ideas now and then, but I don’t really take part in governance proper because: it’s expensive; it requires significant time investment to make informed decisions, which is most certainly not worth it for a small holder; and it seems pointless, since a few whales can steamroll a vote and MKR minting to distribute the power a little does not seem to be in their interest at all, at least on the surface.

I’m now actually kind of curious to know what goings on you find interesting, @Spidomo. Perhaps highlighting some things could help add to the discussion?

Lately I’ve been thinking about how MakerDAO tends to flap (purchase MKR and burn it) during times of system strength (likely higher MKR price), but flop (sell MKR for Dai) during times of system weakness (likely lower MKR price), and considering some ideas to help change that.


I think this is good feedback, thanks for taking the time to provide it. My question to you is this - what would get you more interested in governance?

As a side note, I think the recent Core Unit framework from @juanjuan’s DAO Primitives post has a lot of people excited, as it outlines a clear path to being compensated while working for the DAO.

(Credit to @iammeeoh and @ElProgreso as well for the post)


USDC exposure is down to 25%. But back then, it was a priority to stabilize DAI to the promise of a $1 peg. And you have to admit, so far it has been a great call by the Risk Team. Nobody is perfect. Besides, can we name another synthetic “stablecoin” that has kept a tight peg to the USD in the last 60 days? :thinking: If you want food for thought–think USDT is the elephant in the entire crypto-room… just saying. That will be a historic event.

For some community folks, “raking in some good Dai” can help them keep the lights on. We have folks here from Venzuela, to South Korea. Not everyone can afford to Yield Farm on Ethereum. Hence, that little bit of DAI via SourceCred helps some of our community members.

Personally I vote consistently based on my believe that we have an opportunity to make history. And yes, my Pleb vote does not make a difference with the outcome–but imagine if we had 10,000 low IQ Plebs like me voting every week…

But I get your Drift. There are Hundreds of Thousands of MKR tokens out there, and the current HAT is only protected by 50K MKR. A bit comical, perhaps ironic-- MKR is a Governance Token, yet most don’t bother to govern & protect. Imagine the Federal Reserve not protecting their Monetary Policy… what to do…

“And isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?
A little too ironic, and yeah I really do think” –Alanis Morissette


Well I’m glad no one’s flown into a rant about how rude I was being, because going back and reading my OP, I think I was angry; I apologize if that’s how I came across. In any case, I think a small but measurable return on any participation in the governance system would help engage more people–it’d certainly engage me. For example, if the act of voting were to earn you a small percentage on your MKR holdings each time you did it, whether the vote went your way or not; this could tie into delegation in an interesting way, but I imagine the mechanics of these things are best saved for a separate thread. :slightly_smiling_face: The point is, things like that which specifically reward participation in governance, seem to draw more participation simply by being there–SourceCred is a good example of this.

Yes, at the risk of blowing the whole system up; meanwhile there was no DSR, drastically reduced (at the very least) SF revenue. We maintained the peg, but we could’ve died a couple times and we made almost no money. Though the market value of our surplus would have been all over the place, I would rather the peg have drifted than have an empty wallet; half of something is half, but half of nothing is nothing.

But yes, it has indeed turned out to be a good call; that doesn’t mean it wasn’t very dangerous. It could just as easily have landed us in extinction. Any number of things could have gone wrong. DeFi was exploding and, in my experience at least, whenever a new industry explodes in popularity, the government jumps in and regulates it into oblivion. I’ll use USDC at the height of its popularity in our vaults as an example here, but this could apply to any centralized stablecoin. Because (at the time) more than half of our collateral was USDC, we had effectively integrated at least the following entities into our protocol:

  • Circle
  • The Securities Exchange Commission
  • The Federal Reserve
  • The U.S. Treasury

These entities, collectively, either directly or indirectly, control USDC. The greater the portion of our total collateral USDC makes, the more control these entities exert over our collateral. Now go and apply this to every centralized stablecoin we have in our vaults (with the appropriate institutions involved), and you’ll likely begin to see that centralized stablecoins are really icky; this is unless you flat out don’t care about what makes crypto, crypto. I, for one, certainly don’t want the USFG (or any government, for that matter, no matter who’s in charge of it) being able to tell me what I can and can’t do with my money in any form; it’s mine, and no one else’s unless I give it to them when they ask, nicely. On a side note, I’m starting to wonder if the idea of private property being private makes me old-fashioned. :thinking:

Corrected. :grin:

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate what they do. I’m also not unaware of their fallible nature and wouldn’t dream of holding it against them. But my understanding was that their job was to identify risks and avoid them, not take them. :stuck_out_tongue:

I hope I wasn’t interpreted as disparaging SourceCred in some way; I’m actually very happy with the system and I’m glad we’ve brought it in, it does seem to have helped the community, and it’s helped me a little too, because I am also one of those people who can’t afford to yield farm. :sweat_smile: I love SourceCred and MakerDAO, and if I could, I would govern the DAO as my full-time job! But I don’t because as far as I can see it’s currently more profitable for me to work at my job. That’s what I mean when I say I don’t have enough incentive to govern (among the other reasons for not doing so that I outlined in the OP, such as whales). If you think that assessment is inaccurate I’d love to hear it; I always appreciate a new revelation! :grin:

These are now things I look forward to.

As an aside, this discussion has helped me pick a topic for my blog. :grin: