This guide is for anyone with less experience navigating MakerDAO, but are interested in gathering feedback or sentiment from Maker Governance and the MakerDAO community.
Jumping into MakerDAO can be intimidating at first, but this guide outlines the various optional points of entry for you to jump in. If you need any guidance at any point, inquire on the #governance-and-risk Rocketchat channel or reach out to any Core Unit Facilitator.
If you're new, click this toggle to learn about some commonly used MakerDAO Governance and Community definitions
MakerDAO is a Distributed Autonomous Organization that governs the Maker Protocol, a smart-contract system on the Ethereum blockchain that backs and dynamically stabilizes the value of the Dai.
The MakerDAO Community is a generic term which encompasses the several groups actively participating in or using Maker. This includes Contributors, Integration Partners, Maker Foundation Employees, and stakeholders in Maker Governance (see below).
Maker Governance is loosely defined by people (MKR Holders + Community participating in the Forum) who actively participate in governing Maker. These members can also include Collateral Partners, Keepers, Market Makers, Vault Owners, Core Unit Teams.
A Core Unit is a building block for organizing work for the DAO. Facilitators define long-term work areas and cover a broad set of focus and responsibilities for the protocol to be secure and successful. Core Unit Mandates set the direction of the work that Facilitators must help carry out. To read more about Core Units, head to MIP39: Core Unit Framework.
MakerDAO Governance uses a variety of on-chain and off-chain communications to build, execute, and make decisions on initiatives and changes to the protocol. Decisions are coordinated around the Maker Protocol through the following channels:
- Maker Forum (Regular Post / Signal Request / Forum Polls)
- Rocketchat #governance-and-risk channel
- Weekly Governance and Risk Meetings
- Poll Votes: Measures the sentiment of MKR voters.
- Executive Votes: “Executes” technical changes to the Maker Protocol.
Read more details on MakerDAO Standard Governance Processes.
If you’re looking to gather feedback or sentiment from Maker Governance and the wider MakerDAO community, start by formulating the question, ask or discussion point. Below are commonly asked points to consider in the approach to the community:
- What are you trying to achieve?
- Are you looking for a binary yes/no outcome or are you looking for long-form feedback?
- How and what will you present to the community? Is it a question or a proposal?
- Does it require resources (funding and/or core unit team review, support, and/or integrations) from the DAO? If so, what?
- Do you need general group preference or validation through a vote?
- What is the timeframe you should expect?
Once you have a clear idea on what you want to inquire from MakerDAO, you can structure a method for the approach. Anyone can start work without a formal signal from Governance, but if the project requires amendments to the Protocol, DAO resources like funding, core unit team assessments, code integrations, a Maker Improvement Proposals (MIP) will have to be submitted through the full governance process.
Individuals may propose MIPs directly without initial discourse with the community and utilize the Request for Comment as the feedback period. The voting outcome is YES/NO, and the choices are YES/NO/ABSTAIN. Comments are available for only executive votes and not required. While the community encourages voters to speak up, some MKR Holders are unknown therefore reasoning of a vote outcome may be unknown. For these reasons, incremental steps to get approval are encouraged. For ideas that need discussion, there are a number of opportunities to gain feedback before escalating the formality of the proposal:
Discourse on Maker Forum: Conversations on the forum are usually the first step to encourage feedback and discussion from the wider MakerDAO community.
- Do some research first. See if there are already similar discussions happening.
- Start a discussion via forum post. There can be a “Pre-MIP” discussion post, informal polls, or general topic discussions.
- If your post doesn’t get traction in the first few days, there may be several reasons why: the post can get buried under day-to-day governance or the post/ask was unclear.
- Without spamming the channels, there are a few ways to increase exposure to your post to gain engagement: try cross-posting in the appropriate channels in Rocketchat or Reddit, or ask individuals to leave comments on the thread or provide direct feedback.
Choose one or more methods to best collect the intended feedback: MakerDAO Standard Governance Processes covers the three standard ways.
- Keep in mind, formal governance processes can take up to 2 months. Most MIPs take one month in the Request for Comments (RFC) phase and another month to go through a monthly voting cycle; therefore, you may want to take the timing of the content and feedback into account.
Present on Calls if there’s deeper discussion needed and/or presentation is your preferred method. Opportunities to present ideas to the community occur frequently and include:
Community Call - General platform for community members
These are scheduled fairly far in advance, so book early. Reach out to @Seth.goldfarb via Rocketchat.
Collateral Onboarding Call - For discussion around collateral projects.
Reach out to @juan
Governance and Risk Call
Agenda is limited, but if you’d like, reach out to the Governance Facilitator @longforwisdom to request time on the agenda.
Request your own
One-Off, Time according to your schedule.
Reach out to @juan
Sometimes MIPs and intentions don’t pass. MIPs may be submitted three times before the community will stop addressing the issue. In the case of MIP13c3-SP8: Maker Protocol Cover with Nexus Mutual, the poll did not pass, but it was not resubmitted. In the case of MIP14: Protocol DAI Transfer, efforts were made to improve the proposal before resubmitting and passing. Consider the following:
- The proposal was unclear, question and comments are unresolved
- The proposal was too complex or difficult to implement
- The proposer failed to lobby stakeholders appropriately
- Solution was undesirable.
General best practice is to breakdown and clarify complex or contentious statements and provide a clear, unambiguous definition as to what is being questioned or agreed on.
Click this toggle to see examples of others who have navigated the process
Community Development wanted to know if high fidelity summaries of the Governance and Risk calls are useful for the community and the Real World Assets team created a poll to help them inform prospects on terms. Both examples used the Forum to get feedback from the wider community on the direction of their work.
B Protocol wanted to see if MakerDAO was interested in creating a specific vault type that integrates with its protocol. They started with a discussion in the Forum, presented on a Collateral Onboarding Call, submitted an Informal Poll to gauge interest, and submitted a MIP13 subproposal to expand on their plan.
Governance Communications: A group of community members wanted to explore communications within the DAO, furthered their inquiry through user research, and submitted a MIP13 subproposal to inquire about formalization as a domain.
6S Capital Real World Assets: started with a discussion on the opportunity, presented on a collateral call, engaged in a ton of related discussions on the topic, submitted a Declaration of Intent, used a Signal Request to prioritize its development, submitted a technical proposal via MIP, and started a forum thread to provide consistent updates.
This guide should be seen as an evolving document. Community members are encouraged to share their experiences in the comments below.