Generalized Governance Discussion Thread

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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.


Perhaps Goals #2 " Serving the Underserved’, and #5 “Driving DAI adoption” have been a bit hampered by lack of Regulations/clarity? I would not be surprised if KYC/AML comes into play in the MakerDAO ecosystem. Although I believe the Maker Foundation & Teams have done a terrific job in driving DAI adoption, again even if their ability has being hampered by a lack of clarification from regulators. Also, with regards to " focus on Dai adoption in emerging markets"–as an American I would like to include the people of Detroit, Newark, NJ, etc., as an example of people who are also underserved.
“Money is too dangerous of an idea for school, if only people understood how money works” -unknown

1 Like

Hi @MakerMan,

I could have done this since a while to regroup post together,

  • Arrange them in a proper section or sub-section.
  • Close old thread and regroup them.
  • Add some color to this forum.
  • And much more.

But i need special permission of course to do this, i don't have all the permission granted to move thread and make some cleaning. If this can help, i offer you some of my time to do it.


Agreed, we need to reconcile this somehow. @Planet_X idea of staking for collateral on-boarding is a bit more in that direction

I don’t see much initiative in the community for anything besides scientific governance. Personally I think basing governance off a hardline “science is everything” philosophy seems both unwise and unstable. Science is about observation and manipulation of matter for more observation, no “true” perception (data is just a recorded perception) can exist (You only realize that if you ask science…).

Data math and logic are all certainly useful and drive legit arguments, but to think they can figure everything out neglects modern understandings of reality. From britannica describing quantum mechnics:

"In spite of the overwhelming practical success of quantum mechanics, the foundations of the subject contain unresolved problems—in particular, problems concerning the nature of measurement.An essential feature of quantum mechanics is that it is generally impossible, even in principle, to measure a system without disturbing it; the detailed nature of this disturbance and the exact point at which it occurs are obscure and controversial. "

If you look into the scientific literature, fundamental things textbooks describe as understood (like photons and electrons) actually elicit huge debate and disagreement on fundamental natures. This is a good one for people interested

Personally I see the goals as guidelines and subjective non definable benchmarks. The threshold for “successfully” serving the undeserved will always be changing as time passes and the dao takes on different characteristics and understands


This might belong here too, just wrote a bit about compensating workers and that it requires maker to control finances (as a dao) MakerDao needs a Treasury to provide Compensation to its Workers post foundation (focus on workers for now)


I will add more but I think (4) comment is somewhat unfair on second consideration.

There is a scientific governance portal that opened up we do have another site which has info regarding previous votes, so there is a record and at least a first shot look at the historical governance votes. There is also the Executive/Governance smart code itself, etc. So I have to be fair - ‘some’ work has been done on gradual decentralization and governance based on where the system is now (evolving from nothing). I just think no real measurement metric has been conceived much less applied to (4). MKR analysis - what accounts, who has been doing what with respect to governance needs have a much more ‘internal’ data based introspective approach. This can be problematic since one of the things people like about crypto is the ability to be ‘anonymous’ and in this respect there can be conflicting views to connect a person to MKR, activities and vice versa but if we can’t get data we can’t do much science on it.


I need to read your post carefully Mitote. Initial reaction is so much a thumbs up. Almost written as if you were reading my mind on this issue but I didn’t get to finish my read and comment other than here.

Why you were reading my mind is because this came up in the ‘tranparency’ part of my analysis on Maker (still unfinished because I honestly don’t know what is on-chain or not with respect to Maker activities over the past few years) but was thinking part of the operational payments ideally could be ‘on-chain’. In effect putting certain aspects of operational financial workings available to everyone as part of the decentralization strategy.