Foundation Statement on the PSM

Kurt_Barry · December 7, 2020, 2:45pm

The formal MIP for the recently re-proposed Peg Stability Module (“PSM”) can be found here:

The Maker Foundation, in particular its Smart Contracts team (including those team members who are also mandated actors for the DAO), has not had any involvement with nor made any contribution to the PSM. Moreover, the Maker Foundation and its Smart Contracts team has not and will not provide support (technical, ministerial, or otherwise) for the PSM.

The Maker Foundation cannot make any guarantee or provide any opinion regarding the safety or correctness of the PSM implementation. We therefore strongly encourage the community to seek multiple independent validations for the module from reputable smart contract auditing firms.

LongForWisdom · December 7, 2020, 3:02pm

Assuming that the community wants to go ahead with implementation, will the Smart Contracts Domain Team be able to create or QA an executive spell that includes authorizations of the PSM contracts to interact with the Maker Protocol?

Kurt_Barry · December 7, 2020, 3:29pm

Creating or reviewing a spell to authorize the PSM contracts against the system would fall under “support (technical, ministerial, or otherwise) for the PSM”, so no.

This restriction applies only to Foundation-employed individuals.

prose11 · December 7, 2020, 3:51pm

So how much of the Smart Contracts and Risk Team remain to help with this?

LongForWisdom · December 7, 2020, 4:05pm

Thanks for the clarification Kurt, apologies to continue asking questions, but how would this work in terms of other changes within the same spell?

Would the inclusion of the PSM permissions prevent you from doing any work on the spell even if unrelated to the PSM?

@wil is part of the Smart Contracts Domain Team and no longer part of the Foundation. @Primoz is the only Risk Domain Team member and is not employed by the Foundation.

prose11 · December 7, 2020, 4:07pm

So I wouldn’t be misguided to say this adds a pretty severe hurtle to implementation? Seems like with this view from the foundation we might need to dedicate some serious community resources to recruiting and training as to stay on the right path for a true DAO

LongForWisdom · December 7, 2020, 4:17pm

This is pretty much why the autonomous makerdao working group exists. If you’re interested in helping us towards that goal, please get in touch.

Kurt_Barry · December 7, 2020, 4:39pm

If the PSM is included in a spell, we can’t work on it.

ultraschuppi · December 7, 2020, 5:47pm

Sounds like the first addition to MKR contracts which needs to be crafted totally w/o any involvement of the foundation. Sounds super scary, but… “Let’s Dao it”!

(Wearing the shirt today)

hexonaut · December 7, 2020, 6:29pm

I posted this in the Road to the PSM thread, but I’ll post here as well.

Quantstamp has agreed to provide us with a security review within the established timeline which will be funded from the DAO. Assuming this goes through, I am fully capable of deploying the spell myself when the time comes.