[Gov Poll] Vote for 0% for the Stablecoin Stability Fee!

MKR holders if you want to help us with this be ready to vote and move your MKR over asap.

10 Likes

Perhaps it is worth to start a new thread with this specific message and pin it?

It appears that this is extremely important. Also worth re-stating often in the chat.

2 Likes

I may do a new thread for status update on the PSM. Lots of pieces are in motion.

3 Likes

Thank you for this. It’s a very helpful list. I’d actually love to see this in its own thread. Is it already somewhere else? If not, do you mind if I post it?

I was thinking of starting a thread on the end of year timeline, just so we could keep it updated. If you want to start that it would be appreciated.

1 Like

Ooooh that was a good idea. Similar to the Collateral Status Index if I may dare to suggest.

1 Like

Added to its own thread:

3 Likes

Hi all!,

The poll for lowering the stablecoin stability fees passed with option 0% as seen on:

https://vote.makerdao.com/polling/QmcALf82?network=mainnet#poll-detail

Even though, it wasn’t included in today executive. Is there a reason for this?

The vote passed with a plurality of the vote, but not a majority which requires > 50% of the vote. As stated in the poll’s language a majority was required to pass this.

Got it Sam thanks! Not sure why other supporting the 0% didn’t switch to 2% if it was clear there was no chance for winning selecting 0%.

This said, probably I would not have changed neither, because I ignored (not knowing) the “majority of vote” part.

3 Likes

Following today Zoom meeting with @hexonaut, the best shot for PSM to be published would be in the executive vote on Dec 18th right?

That means that at least that something very weird occurs in DEFI, those who shorted DAI back in September (like @cyrus and others included) probably lost the “bet” right? Or is it possible to take this poll again next week if a new signal request is submitted?

I understand that going down to 0% could have not been beneficial to MKR holders (even if it was the best for keepers), but I think that it worth to find a middle ground here, and if 2% SF is that one, we should at least try to agree on that.

Yeah I’m planning to rerun the poll as soon as an executive is available which will be early December. Although the decision is technically correct, I do think MKR holders want a lower SF.

7 Likes

that would be great! if those of us who shorted could get out with just a little bit of what we put in, it would be great! :sweat_smile:

If you sold for Dai >$1.01, don’t you have a profit? You can just abandon the CDP

nope, with the 4% stability fee I am at 99.6%. So I got my hopes up for the 0% stability fee. But now with the 4% I will basically lose it all within the next 30 days.

What does Dai need to trade at for you to exit at breakeven?

We are approximately at the breakeven point right now. Just slightly underwater for the leading edge vaults.

In my case DAI should be lower than current levels for breaking even. Not in Coinbase!, but in Curve or similar (as far as I know I cannot unwind a leverage using Coinbase price). TBH I already assumed I simply lost the deal there, yes that 0%, or even 2% and then PSM was a life saver; but the wrong decision was taken by myself in September, I definitely think that I shouldn’t complain, it was a bad decision as a keeper, that’s all (as somebody said above, sometimes you win, sometimes you loose this game). But of course, if something miraculous happens and we see a push back to those levels, then at least I will not loose the investment (which would be great of course!).

What worries me is what will happen if others (probably like me) doesn’t unwind those big leverages (not talking about a few DAI here), if those CDP are 100% abandoned, they will continue collecting fee forever?? (or a 0% like the action plan for stablecoins will take place and will apply forever to that CDP, I wonder if we should have a zombi CDP as long as the DAO lives with a bunch of USDC on it).

The Vault doesn’t really keep “collecting” the fees. It just goes to the surplus buffer, so as long as governance continues to raise the buffer above the bad debt coming from the stablecoin vaults, there shouldn’t be an issue.

I’ll put a specific example. Somebody invested 10k USDC in Sept and made a leverage to tens of millions of USDC - DAI. That’s quite an important amount IMO with fees between 500k - 1M DAI per year. On Dec 18th if all goes fine, PSM is activated but this person was not able to break even (I don’t think he’ll unwind his vault when it simply recover some 500DAI or even 1000DAI, probably not interested in less than 5k). For Dec 18th (or one week later, after the vote is approved and PSM “published”) then he’ll need already DAI to worth 0.999 for breaking even. Fees continues accumulating (PSM doesn’t set fees to 0!). For January he’ll need 0.99 or lower DAI values. CDP will be abandoned with tens of millions of USDC and fees in DAI being sent toward the surplus buffer.

Till when will we be obliged to keep a growing surplus buffer for maintaining this (and maybe others) CDP “printing DAI”?

Not sure if it makes sense. And yes, the situation above is real!