Keying off some suggestions and increasingly common questions in the forum, does MakerDAO want to have in place a policy for DAI that is irretrievably and provably lost (such as in the DAI contract)?
The DAI contract currently holds more than 320k DAI, including half a dozen DAI receipts in the last two weeks. Occasionally, significant sums find their way in, such as almost 45k DAI a few weeks ago.
Should MakerDAO have some form of regular partial repayment for lost DAI? If so, how much and under what conditions?
It seems particularly useful to already have in place an established policy in the event a large DAI holder needs a significant amount of replacement. As TradFi and institutions become increasingly involved in the DeFi ecosystem – which utilizes large quantities of DAI – a standardized policy would avoid a rushed ad hoc process and also ensure any parties in need of assistance are treated impartially.
Other benefits, of course, would include optics. Nonrecourse is a constant complaint in consumer protection circles, and even just a good faith iterative improvement could stave off would-be complaints that could result in regulatory or reputational risk.
There is, of course, also the option of an established policy of nonintervention. Stating that formally could also have benefits – namely in the uniform treatment of parties and lowered communication burden.
What does the DAO think on this topic? Should there be a standardized policy, and if so, what should it generally look like?