I’m starting this thread because I keep hearing a lot of discussion regarding general governance questions but i really don’t see a thread that seeks as a primary goal a discussion of the larger issues around governance from a community perspective and goal achievement. While I may make subsequent posts here regarding details connected to governance that I see as outstanding issues I think a general thread where we can talk about Maker goals in connection to governance goals as well as measurement metrics to achieve them as a community is highly over due.
5 core Maker Governance principles.
Scientific Governance - Governance Framework will be built on rigorously vetted, reproducible, scientific models creates by experts with proven track records in the traditional finance space.
- Governance Proposals - symbolic votes to poll community sentiment
- Executive Proposals - Used to ratify risk parmeters and modify the system.
Consensus-seeking (no definitiion of consensus). Nor a real definition or deliniation
of communication ‘channels’ used to achieve.
No measurement proposal regarding this hence imo it generally stands unable to move forward because no-one can scientifically define a data structure to measure success or failure. I will add specifically that the Maker Foundation has put itself outside of this metric (they will have no special powers and by definition means they choose to participate only peripherally in governance issues). So there is no leadership by the foundation on this issue as well.
FYI: There is no concept within Maker that borrowers and DAI holders are also stake holders in the system and ideally should have a voice in governance.
Serving the underserved. Again there are no defining measurement metrics to gauge sucess or failure. ‘triple bottom line’ of what? As to connecting this to ‘emerging economies’ or peoples I honestly see no reasonable metric to measure this. Hence again we have no data source to measure success or failure of Maker to achieve this goal.
Sustainable finance. Long term societal, environmental, and sustainablility impact into account. Again no measurable quantities hence no way to gauge success or failure to achieve this particular goal.
Gradual Decentralization. I see discussion about step-by-step but I don’t see any of the steps laid out. I don’t even see the most basic analysis being put forward regarding MKR holders, activities, etc. Much less any analysis of such information regarding MKR holders from a stability of the community perspective (i.e. what MKR is doing vs. what people are doing). Again another goal that as far as I can tell has no measurement metric to gauge success or failure.
Driving DAI adoption. Here I think a lot has been done. But I do not see a clearly laid out metric regarding DAI adoption by the financial ecosystem that could be used as a historical metric to gauge success or failure. We have some measurable metrics, DAI outstanding, PEG data and some idea of DAI penetration into the crypto markets, but not much else when it connects to ‘people’.
My general Maker analyisis has led to a general conclusion regarding governance. There are no self-chosen or community appointed actors regarding not just accepting the goals laid out above, but anyone even trying to provide/create metrics to measure the achievement of such goals. (exception is (5) where some work has been done but is not well colliated into a single source of scientific data regarding DAI adoption)
My general conclusion is that what there is of the community will find it difficult at best to move forward on the above if measurement metrics are not defined and historical data gathered. I am not even clear the community as a whole (as we know it now) is still aligned with the above ‘goals’.
Hence the first discussion regarding governance should be a re-discussion regarding the Maker goals (above and otherwise) that include at least peripherial discussions about the means to measure achievement of them or failure. My point here is that a goal that does not have a measurement standard for success will never be able to succeed because scientific measurement models can’t be applied.