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

If it goes to $1 tomorrow, why would you wait for the PSM?

I wouldn’t wait, but I wouldn’t cover if the slippage pushed it back to $1.01. I wouldn’t cover unless I can get a market price of $1.001 or less (assuming that’s what the PSM will offer).

1 Like

This will likely push the price back to where it is right now, no? Is there a reason you’re not advocating a reduction in the CR in addition to the lowering of the SF?

I think what Cyrus is saying is it’s a balance. For example, before PSM, if somebody unwinds as it’s very close to $1 then yes, it might push up the price but then that also opens up more potential arb profit and thus push it back down and repeat. But in theory, the price will be higher than without PSM of course.

So then why would we cut the stability fee?

In theory, the price will be higher than without PSM. And with stability fee but without PSM, the “normal” price will be even higher as there’s added cost to opening up (more accurately maintaining) this kind of position

There is a reason we don’t have multiple executives per week on a general basis. The last one took 5 days to pass. If you add another one too swiftly, there is a chance that the previous one just won’t pass. Every time we have the monthly MIPs executive, we have to deal with it almost not passing in time.

Also, despite the new UI, vote-weight is still ends up being split between current and new executives, though not quite to the extent it used to be.

1 Like

Yes, not saying we should do this on a general basis. Just occasionally if the system is holding us back from getting things done. Obviously we’d need to be cognizant of not impacting the previous exec.

3 Likes

Just some clarity on timelines. We have a limited number of executives before the end of the year.

2020-11-20: Just configuration changes, PAXG's transfer fees need more time to accommodate. We probably won’t see PAXG now until 2021.
2020-11-27: DsChief 1.2 executive
2020-12-04: Might not happen given the vote, delay, and activation of DsChief 1.2 executive
2020-12-11: MIP27 (DC-IAM), AAVE, UNI, RenBTC, tBTC
2020-12-18: MIP21 (RWA), UNI-V2-DAI-ETH, UNI-V2-USDC-ETH, UNI-V2-WBTC-ETH, MIP25 (Flash Mint)

This is a tentative end-of-year schedule. It’s very aggressive, which means that for anything on this list, if it doesn’t work out flawlessly, we are moving on. As I see it, the best shot PSM has at making it in by the end of the year is to swap the flash mint module, MIP25, with the PSM. We can only do that if the PSM is signaled for, and gets a comprehensive review from domain teams and outside auditors/engineers. As I’m sure most of you know, the foundations SC team cannot be involved with the PSM. This puts a lot on the community and @hexonaut to get this through. However, if the PSM is completely ready, I think we could probably swap MIP25 for it.

Edit: I made this its own post: 2020 Year End Schedule

9 Likes

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.