Issue Discussion | #2 Fixed-Rate Vault Solutions

Options, options, options! MakerDAO currently has three fixed-rate solutions for Maker Vaults.

We have:

  • The Term Lending Module (TLM) from Yield Protocol, which is already approved and detailed in MIP43.
  • Deco Protocol, which has a Core Unit proposal currently in Formal Submission.
  • Last, but not least, a solution from Pairwyse, that is in a pre-MIP discussion.

The topic will be discussed in a variety of ways. First we will listen to brief overviews of each solution and then the call will be guided by open-ended discussion questions such as:

  • What’s ideal for the Maker Protocol with regards to these solutions?
  • How do we deal with or prioritize between multiple approved solutions?
  • What are the key differences between TLM, Pairwyse, and Deco?

Stakeholders are welcome to raise questions, concerns, and any other type of feedback.

Join us on Zoom 2021-10-12T16:00:00Z as GovComms Facilitator David Utrobin sits down with representatives from these projects to discuss the pros and cons of each solution.

This panel discussion will be hosted by @davidutro and feature:

TLM from Yield


Pre-call Notes

Please bring your questions, thoughts, and opinions.

If you can’t make it, this recording will be posted on the MakerDAO Youtube Channel.

@Recognised-Delegates @Protocol-Engineering @Risk-Core-Unit


My first instinct is to remove this post for being made in bad faith but I’m not going to do that because it’s a good example of a recurring issue I would like to see addressed in this community. This post contains numerous inaccuracies, it’s being updated with tags on the Friday afternoon prior to a vote on our upcoming budget proposal, and it’s the first post from an account that’s less than a couple of months old.

The Content team hosts weekly Office Hours, publishes bi-weekly updates on our progress, and I’m personally available via Chat (@seth.goldfarb) and the Forum during the week. If you, or anyone else, have concerns about what the Content team or any other Core Unit is up to, you have ample opportunity and are welcome to reach out and express yourself in good faith.

I like the saying that people should “praise specifically, and criticize generally.” Publicly calling someone or a whole team out is an example of poor management and isn’t a sustainable way for the DAO to address concerns.

If your concerns are serious enough that you feel it warrants a formal proposal, you’re free to make one but publicly dismissing my team’s work like this means I have to take time away from day-to-day work to address any concerns they have and craft responses to make sure our stakeholders aren’t being misinformed, in addition to addressing your concerns.

If you reach out privately, I’m able to address these concerns without all of those extra problems and we can work together to try and do better for the DAO in a way that’s more efficient and creates less stress for everyone involved.

We regularly receive suggestions and feedback and make every effort to incorporate them into our work where it makes sense or explain why we’re doing something differently if we don’t think it’s a good idea.

I appreciate that you’re looking out for the DAO and encourage you to read our bi-weekly updates to get a more accurate view of what our team has been up to and if you still have concerns, please reach out to me privately so we can discuss them.

I also recommend publishing your concerns about Maker’s business needs and ROI in its own thread so the issue can be discussed as a separate topic.


First off, thank you for this feedback.

Many of the points you bring up are already present in our thinking for improving these calls. For the last two months Govcomms has not prioritized these improvements since we did not have a full-time Engagement Lead who is dedicated to making progress on this. Our Engagement Lead started last week and so we will begin to set some better practices around issue discussion calls at a minimum. Some of what you suggest particularly rings useful:

  • Call-Specific Documentation for purpose and working processes.
  • Pre-call notes
  • Pre-call attendance list
  • Pre-call Questions List
  • Better purpose statements & documentation for these calls
  • Pre-prep notes from guests
  • Pre-prep notes from hosts

For these first two issue discussion calls, we have been prioritizing and selecting topics pretty subjectively–Between our teams, we list all the relevant current events and choose the one we think the community needs to be more informed on given the issues up for vote or coming up for vote. We have not been amazing at the pre-call prep and I think that’s the main area we need to improve on.

Perhaps we should have avoided doing any calls until we had the foundational documentation, working processes, etc set up. Though we thought it better to hit the ground running and produce what we can without gaps while we onboarded the Engagement Lead role. I mainly led this effort from the Govcomms side by hosting these initial calls myself, in anticipation of an Engagement Lead hire that would then take this side of our mandate to the next level.

Expect improvements in the coming week and months as we ramp up our new team member.

You can find the COM-001 public budget and actuals here, with a more detailed breakdown similar to SES’s coming soon.

From Aug - Oct we are under budget by more than half. This won’t be the case moving forward as this first quarter was subject to the pains of initial setup and launch (no third FT, no health insurance, no travel, etc.)

I also caution folks to consider the actuals vs budgeted figures. They can have large differences.

The main purpose of this call is compare and contrast these different solutions. Hence why I added some questions in the call’s description/promo. Additionally, there are pre-call notes, not sure why they weren’t linked.

What’s ideal for the Maker Protocol with regards to these solutions?
How do we deal with or prioritize between multiple approved solutions?
What are the key differences between TLM, Pairwyse, and Deco?

I think as we move ahead you will find many of your specific points of feedback incorporated.

As for clarity in CU mandates–we agree. GovComms is planning a mandate refresh in the new year to more clearly present the mandate of our team.


This full call is now available for review on the MakerDAO Youtube channel: