[Informal Polls] Clean Money - Exploratory Sentiment Polling

To aid in narrowing down what the MakerDAO community likes and dislikes about the Clean Money vision, here’s a set of sentiment polls with which you can express your views as they relate to Rune’s post.

These polling questions do assume that you’ve read Rune’s post in full. Feel free to refer back if you’re confused about some of the terms included in the polls.

You may vote for a single option in each poll.

High Level

MakerDAO needs a unifying vision beyond ‘get rich’
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

Clean Money and fighting climate change should be MakerDAO’s unifying vision
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

Collateral

MakerDAO should prioritise climate-aligned and sustainable real world asset collateral
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

MakerDAO should prioritise real world asset collateral in climate-change resilient jurisdictions
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

MakerDAO should prioritise decentralized collateral
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

MakerDAO should prioritise Ethereum as its core decentralized collateral
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

MakerDAO should adopt climate-aligned ‘backbone’ collateral to support its goals
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

MakerDAO should continue to rely on ‘liquidity’ collateral such as centralized stablecoins and liquid tokenized bonds.
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

Tokenomics

MakerDAO needs a tokenomics revamp in order to support its other goals.
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

MakerDAO should prioritize growth over conservative MKR token issuance.
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

MakerDAO should pursue using NFT’s to support its tokenomics and vision.
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

The Sagittarius Engine is a good tokenomics structure for MakerDAO to adopt.
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

MakerDAO Structure

Decentralization continues to be extremely important for MakerDAO.
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

Transparency continues to be extremely important for MakerDAO.
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

MakerDAO should evolve its governance structures and processes to aid decentralization.
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

Governance of MakerDAO needs to put MKR Holders first.
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

Governance of MakerDAO should aim for a stable equilibrium period under which no major changes take place
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

MakerDAO should introduce a ‘Separation of Powers’ framework to ensure the decentralization of the layers of the governance process.
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

MakerDAO should introduce a ‘Decision Impact Assessment’ framework that can standardize the level of detail required of KPI and prioritization processes and related disclosures for Mandated Actors.
  • Strongly agree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Don’t feel strongly either way
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Strongly disagree
  • Abstain

0 voters

Thanks for voting!

13 Likes

I have a couple of questions that I think will help to move this debate in the right direction…

  1. What is the intent of the term “unifying vision”? Is this something that we use to determine priorities? Is it PR? A mix?

  2. To somewhat expand on the above (but I think it merits its own point), when reading the following poll statement:

Clean Money and fighting climate change should be MakerDAO’s unifying vision

Does this imply that MakerDAO would prioritize “clean money” and climate change over the stability of Dai? If not, what happens when the stability of Dai is hypothetically in conflict with the unifying vision?

I’m sure there’s good answers to these questions and I think everyone can cast a more accurate vote once the terms are clarified. For me personally, I’m in favor of everything at the moment, but that’s based on my subjective understanding of the terms that requires clarification.

9 Likes

Good questions. I think the answers are more something we all need to figure out. These are my interpretations:

I would say both of these.

Personally, I don’t think that it the term unifying vision implies an answer to this one way or another. Voting on a unifying vision doesn’t require us to abandon stability for the vision, nor abandon the vision for stability. I think trying to answer what this means in hypothetical situations isn’t a good use of time. If we’re faced with that choice, we’ll need to make it at that time depending on the circumstances.

I don’t think there is a way of clarifying all these terms such that there is no ambiguity at all. I would encourage you to vote based on your own interpretation rather than waiting for people to agree on how they apply in hypothetical situations.

The point of these polls is to better understand community sentiment, not to commit MakerDAO to any course of action.

A few points:

Places where I abstained I didn’t feel the terms used were ‘defined’ so I refused to vote on this basis on those. (‘Separation of Powers’ and ‘Decision Impact Assessment’)

Regarding ‘stable equilibrium’ I disagreed because we are still in growth phase so I still expect major changes will be needed in certain things.

Regarding MKR holders first. As per my own delegate statement I believe all stakeholders should be considered equally. It is almost a given with MKR being able to vote that they will consider themselves first in virtually every case. Example turning down MKR rewards for governance participation.

Decentralization is not the end all be all and in fact with respect governance is extremely centralized not just in Maker but almost every other significant protocol I can think of.

I am also probably more on the side of prioritizing growth over MKR issuance because I can still be very conservative on MKR issuance, but still want some issuance for good reasons. MKR rewards for governance participation for example. Also I am probably the most conservative regarding MKR rewards for contractors, in that I want these to be conditional on the protocol having net DAI earnings. In fact I want to change the way the system manages profits so the system is taking some % of DAI profits for a period and is buying MKR to vest for MKR compensation - excess potentially going to a MKR vesting buffer, with some percentage of this going to burn… This involves a change in how either governance deals with SB as well as what flaps do with MKR once purchased. I believe this system can be slightly modified to do much better. End result in my own model we only mint MKR to sell when the system has a expenditure shortfall (i.e. contractor commitments) beyond excess reserves.

Regarding Eth as ‘core’ decentralized coin. I think we can do better with other reasonably high MC coins by adopting a slightly different growth approach - to be released by me soon hopefully.
ETH will always be a core collateral given the high MC.

Most everything else is a ‘somewhat agree’ because details need to be discussed. Sagittarius Engine as presented imo needs significant rework but much of what @rune has proposed can be accommodated. Many of the ideas in there are good but the details really need a lot of consideration since as I see it - the engine is not sustainable - nor is it likely to be fair (first come first serve to borrowing seems wrong and emptying the SB to slot for MKR to borrow DAI seems highly risky - there are much better alternatives to achieve the same goals).

20211028_1503U EDIT ADD: On-chain I voted yes to this because I believe the DAO can move forward on this as a vision statement and work on the details that need real work. SE honestly needs significant rework. I think it is more important to take a stance on ‘sustainability’ and then work out the details of achieving it than to say no because the vision doesn’t contain a well formulated sustainable model. Sometimes you have to support intent not just with your words, but also actions.

3 Likes

Interesting survey of the current state of ESG investing, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/goldmans-jeff-currie-its-a-commodities-supercycle/id1056200096?i=1000538907821

2 Likes

Love the community sentiment with voting, good idea!

I abstained on a few of these until I understand a little better.

Could we unpack the

decision impact assessment

I know it solves something critical for transparency and unblocking teams, just curious to know a little more about what the problem is for mandated actors.

equilibrium period

Just for my own clarity, this would mean a “governance freeze” effectively? While we figure out the optimal structure? E.g., no executives and the like.

Want to clarify “MKR holders first” a bit - my point is that I believe regular MKR holders have incentives that are best aligned with Dai holders, and it is also the most decentralized group. Dai holders don’t have direct control over the protocol, which is why MKR holders is the best stand in for their interests. So MKR holders first is meant in comparison to delegates, mandated actors, collateral providers etc, in terms of who should the overall governance infrastructure be designed to serve. If MKR holders are happy, everyone else will also be best off.

Dai users and Dai stability is the number one priority, in a way that is so fundamental that e.g. the entire Clean Money vision can only be justified if it entirely serves the goal of stability.

But it does: Dai simply isn’t gonna make it if the world continues on its current path towards collapse. If you want to stabilize a currency you need to stabilize the economy. If you want to stabilize the economy, you need to stabilize the environment.

In this sense, the USD is not a stable currency - its own popularity is actively contributing to its demise as it directly funds activity that erodes the environmental foundation of its local economy.

8 Likes

Hey everyone,

We voted in favor of the Clean Money Sentiment governance poll. We view this as an important first step towards an opportunity for the community to act on further governance actions that result in a more narrow set of concrete proposals (per the “Outcomes” language of the poll) that can crystallize Maker’s mission, align the community, and set forth a comprehensive financing framework (channeling the work of the Real World Sandbox project) going forward.

We believe this can spark a more vibrant ecosystem that will ultimately establish Maker as a financial force with a positive societal impact. This is a net value add for the entire web3 community.

We are excited to see these developments progress and look forward to seeing what ideas emerge! As always, you can reach me here on the forums, on Telegram @portersmith, or by email at [email protected].

8 Likes

This proposal bundles many somewhat related and unrelated strategic ideas. I think it will take the community some time to unpack and debate all of them. I will comment on a few of them here:

Two points that I wanted to comment on specifically are whether “MakerDAO should prioritise real world asset collateral in climate-change resilient jurisdictions”, as well as the comments on USD hyperinflation and a future free-floating DAI from the original Clean Money post. I think these particular strategic themes should be split out from the general “Green Money” vision since they don’t necessarily align with a lot of people’s views on how to address the Climate Emergency and also have serious implications for all users of the system through monetary policy, and so should be debated separately from the proposal that “Clean Money and fighting climate change should be MakerDAO’s unifying vision”.

Firstly, the idea of strongly prioritising “climate-change resilient jurisdictions”/“Super Countries” to the exclusion of regions that are particularly vulnerable to the consequences of climate change sounds like a cynical and defeatist Sacrifice Zone mentality that short-sells the roles of human compassion and international cooperation in addressing the crisis, while also failing to address the crisis itself, positioning us to “rush to the lifeboats” instead of taking responsibility for stewarding our environments. Needless to say, relocating the entire human civilisation to New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, and the UK is not a viable strategy, and even if it somehow were I don’t think most people would recognise that as a “solution” to the crisis at all. Instead, I think most people who share our enthusiasm for actively addressing Climate Change believe that capital allocation to regions that are most affected by climate change is also required both in order to effect quicker decarbonisation as well as to mitigate the existing and oncoming effects of the crisis. In fact, some of the resilient Super Countries listed already have access to some of the most ample renewables financing available, and might not necessarily be the regions where our financing will be most effective in addressing the crisis.

Secondly, I believe that tying in monetary policy considerations with the ESG investment strategy should be done only very carefully or perhaps not at all. In order for DAI monetary policy to remain credible, it’s important to always clearly signal that transient political themes, collateral onboarding prioritisation, etc. will not be allowed to sway the promised monetary policy objectives (stability, liquidity). More concretely, I think while all of the borrowing is effectively USD-denominated, signalling a vague plan to transition to a different peg strategy is very off-putting for borrowers and in particular introduces huge uncertainty around currency risk for long-term RWA borrowers. Moreover, I think the assertion that Climate Change will lead to hyperinflation in USD is quite controversial and should be debated independently of our “Green Money”/ESG collateral objectives, which are much less contentious, and not potentially destabilising to the global community of DAI users and borrowers.

25 Likes

MakerDAO needs a unifying vision beyond ‘get rich’

This is a loaded question, so I am not too surprised to see myself as a lone wolf down there saying I somewhat disagree. It is interesting that despite the unpopularity of this one, most people somewhat agreed with MakerDAO should prioritize growth over conservative MKR token issuance.

From my perspective, most of the goals that aren’t aligned with growing Maker or “getting rich” are an inefficient use of resources. However, conservative MKR token issuance keeps everything honest. If we are not focused on getting rich and also not focused on conservative issuance, we are leveraging inefficiency and will suffer later. To me, putting greater emphasis on generating profit while also keeping the system honest with consersative MKR issuance is a good balance.

Another thing, which I believe to be true, is that emphasis on profit making is more important in defi/daos than it is in centralized organizations. If the focus isn’t on maximizing profit people will allocate more capital elsewhere and have lower exposure to the dao and thus lower incentive to vote and participate. DAOs need to never forget about profit making.

I’ll bite. Who decides what are

Because IMHO the USA is one of those. And I think such a definition if applied fairly excludes a majority of the countries and their citizens that DAI is best poised to assist.

When the local USDA rep. analyzes my client’s farm and designates certain acres “highly erodible”, which means the client will have to purchase different expensive equipment and till the ground in a certain limited manner, yet does that voluntarily, that’s climate-change resilient. What, say, Latin American countries do this? Are we to exclude them from DAI lending? When my public power company (all electrical power sales in Nebraska must be by publicly owned entities, BTW) successfully sells bonds to generate funds to build wind farms, that’s climate-change resilient. When farmers create co-ops to build ethanol plants then successfully pressure politicians to require inclusion of ethanol in gasoline, that’s climate-change resilient. If I want to run even more environmental-friendly E85 in my vehicle, I have at least 10 locations in Omaha to get that. In Canada E85 is almost non-existent and most of the provinces’ ethanol blending requirements are less than USA.

My point: proclamations from a country’s national government and taxing corporations are feel-good measures and are hollow in gauging a country’s true “climate change resiliency”; it is not a path we should start walking down because if applied fairly it takes a 180 turn from what I thought our goal was - populist and near borderless access to debt financing through cryptocurrency.

3 Likes

My neighboring state of Iowa had 11,000 Megawatts of wind energy capacity through almost 5,600 wind turbines as of the end of 2020. That’s more wind energy capacity than all but 10 countries on the planet, and just shy of the entirety of Canada at about 13,600 Megawatts.

3 Likes