Delegate Address: 0xCdB792c14391F7115Ba77A7Cd27f724fC9eA2091
Email: [email protected]
Your Delegate Video: Meet Your Delegate | Ep. 7 Ft. JustinCase - YouTube
Resides in the UTC+1 time zone.
Maintaining obligations – Trust comes from honouring commitments; trust is essential for adoption and use of the protocol.
Growing the profitability of the protocol – Growth is good, but growth must lead to profitability. I favour increasing revenue over reducing costs.
Simplicity – given a choice between a complex and a less complex solution I will favour the less complex one.
Summary: I will work towards:
- Ensuring that a portion of the protocol profits are going towards maintaining a steady burn but recognize that the protocol has other strategic goals as well.
- Making sure that previously made deals are honoured and that changes, and terminations of deals are communicated well in advance.
- Enhancing growth of the protocol and adoption in new areas, while growing revenue and profitability.
- Communicating in a more easily understandable fashion and to try to create enthusiasm for governance among smaller holders of MKR.
When I first got into Maker in the fall of 2018 the way it was presented to me was something like this: “This new protocol generates a stablecoin that it lends out and it uses the profits to burn the token and increase its value”. With a lifelong interest in finance and just dipping my toes into crypto, this was a sentence that resonated with me. It presented something different in the cryptosphere. I believe many others have heard a similar pitch and has for a time been somewhat disappointed that a combination of factors has led to long periods of no burn.
As examples I have these two quotes from two different articles about Maker:
“…All accrued fees on MakerDAO are paid in MKR. The protocol purchases MKR off the secondary market and burns it, ensuring proper alignment incentive between MKR token holders. The burning of MKR reduces its supply in circulation through its intentional destruction. It is an effective method for increasing and stabilizing the price of MKR with the increased value given to the holder resembling that of a dividend…” Link
“Burnt tokens” have effectively been destroyed, ultimately reducing the total supply of tokens in circulation. Interest accumulated on Maker vaults is paid back in Dai, this Dai is then automatically swapped for MKR and burned. This is the primary economic driver behind the price of MKR tokens. Burning MKR reduces the supply of tokens, putting constant upwards pressure on the price. The more Dai in circulation, the more interest is generated, the stronger the upwards pressure on MKR’s price …” Link
This shows that the perception from the outside is that MKR tokens will be burned. Failing to live up to this expectation is to me a failure to meet obligations. I believe that prolonged periods with no burn is damaging to MakerDAO’s credibility and trust and has caused some retail investors to look to other projects, reducing value for remaining MKR holders.
In order to maintain a healthy burn we must turn a healthy profit as well as keep the protocol safe and stable. As indicated by the portion of MKR in my portfolio I am a believer in the growth potential of Maker. I think there is a potential for capturing a larger market share in the cryptosphere, but I believe there is an even larger potential for growth in Real World Assets (RWA).
Maintaining a burn touches into a broader issue of meeting obligations in general. As we grow larger in RWA, we’re going to have many entities depending on MakerDAO acting in good faith and honouring its obligations. Erratic behaviour will result in us losing trust with other entities and reducing our potential as a partner. My default stance will always be to maintain previous deals, either implicit or explicit. Strong arguments can sway a particular issue or stance but if we need to break off on a previous agreement it will have to be after giving a fair warning ahead of time that we intend to do so, assuming it is not possible to come to a mutually agreeable alternate plan.
I recognize that Maker can have a very high barrier of entry and I will do my very best to try to keep my communication as understandable as possible with as little technical jargon and abbreviations as possible.
Lastly, I’d like to share a little of my background. I’m currently working in business administration with a decade of experience. I hold an MBA with a major in Strategy and a minor in Finance.
I have also had some experience from politics. The key takeaway for me was to more carefully consider the needs of different parties and come up with a workable solution that leaves stakeholders satisfied.
Potential conflicts of interest
I am a holder of MKR and currently it is about half my crypto portfolio. The maker portion is about two years salary. The other half is in ETH.
I hold a diversified portfolio of stocks and funds.
My primary income is not from Maker, nor do I receive any form of compensation outside of MakerDAO for my participation within.
Waiver of liability
I have read and pledge to follow the Recognized Delegate Code of Conduct. As such I will to the best of my ability act in good faith to the best interests of the Maker Protocol. I will maintain communication regarding my stance on the various issues that is voted on.
By delegating to me you acknowledge and agree that JustinCase will not be held liable for any damages caused by my participation in the Maker Protocol or because of any votes cast while acting as a delegate.