Yeah having that as a constraint on how much could be moved out of the surplus with MIP14 probably would assure its passage through governance.
I think there is a real question about what the protocol should do when it needs cash but doesn’t have any to pay for something important but that could and probably should be addressed by another MIP.
Regarding the what to do or how to manage a secondary surplus agree completely that probably is another MIP or a MIPset relating to secondary surplus management. But for now we have to take baby steps MIP14 as a way to remove DAI from surplus and put it ‘somewhere else’ is a completely necessary first step to fund decentralized operations. Without it Maker is dead or will need something like the Foundation forever and if I understand @rune right this simply isn’t happening so we have to have something like MIP14 soon so we can move on to how to manage the secondary fund and then the harder part who gets to disburse funds, when, why for what!
Now that I look back at the poll on this 43% came up with issues about who has control over the fund so it might be that MIP14 may also need a few other MIPs to pass as a set or some subsections?! What I am annoyed about is we didn’t get enough participation on this.
Looks like I didn’t get to vote but will weigh in publicly. I definitely don’t want flops. If we are going to use MKR to buy stuff it shouldn’t be DAI.
I really would like to have thought about the fund management structure, personally I would like to see a team put into place for this that has pretty clear guidelines in place via governance but I think we are going to need a treasury or accounts domain team with some multisig type approach and quality assurance checks, with rewards for good work, so that govenance can and does in the end put their ‘grade’ on what the treasury/accounts team did. Personally it would be interesting to see governance weigh in on individual account/treasury actions with a grade but think it would be expensive tx wise unless we can roll it all up and I also think if we fine grain this it will lead to voter exhaustion to click buttons for every little detail of operations to grade it.
So I want to see MIP14 have a mechanism about surplus transfers not initiating MKR flops, and another MIP to talk about how we are going to manage the surplus. Put simply I am against governance micromanaging everything as I think in the long run it will not be practical, but I would also have concerns over single individuals having sole control over the Maker Treasury. I really like triad approaches where say 2 of 3 have to sign off or 3 of 5. Who those are or how they are appointed and what their responsibilities and authorities are is a whole diff matter but I think to pass MIP14 we need another MIPz in relation to who and how the treasury is managed as well as the size of such a treasury.