Maker Vault Compensation Updates and Status

Absolutely agree with you on that social media piece,I’ve been doing exactly that, next step news channels.

Let’s put a group together and move forward as a unified unit to make sure our efforts are focused and that way more effective.

1 Like

The things that gets me is that it’s not even that much money for MKR to swallow.

Compared to market cap it is but a drop in the ocean.
All negativity could have been warded a long time ago now at little damage to the network.

Instead, the individual pioneers who lost out big are being ignored/dismissed.

Those affected will not stay quiet for long, as is becoming ever more apparent through voices being raised here. The faith that this issue would be addressed by the system is diminishing rapidly.

2 Likes

I am in with the group.
Which platform?
Best would be Twitter. It is googleable. This place is not googlable.
We are ranting alone here, nobody is listening, we are isolated.
Also we need influential people with far reach.

Are you talking about the telegram group? Yes, let’s work together!

1 Like

One other option would be you guys working together to create your own proposal to Maker Governance on how to handle the compensation.

If you can come up with something in a similar vein to the plan document created by the working group, and it covers the whens and hows adequately, I’m happy to put it up for a vote.

4 Likes

@rune, just want to draw your attention here.
We just witnessed that you made the decision of giving up the PSM module and I admire your sense of responsibility there. (A word on the PSM concept and next steps for the Foundation)
But this vault compensation issue never got your attention.

It will be a time bomb for MakerDao if no action is taken, however far it chugs.

1 Like

Folks I understand the frustration. I have my own in different frustrations. @equivrel has commented and I completely agree with him that every vault liquidation is a failure of the system both for vault owners and the system itself. While I will still work on the compensation plan until I get something from governance regarding this issue there is not a lot I can do.

I agree with @LongForWisdom I’d love to see vault owners affected by this:

Honestly what I am looking for at this point is having a poll put up on whether the Compensation group should continue to move forward on this - AND money being put up to pay for the work that has been done and to cover work into the future OR governance to say NO - they are done with this. I consider it unfair not just to the compensation group trying to work on this but all of you affected vaults to be left hanging here with no real guidance one way or another on which way this is going to go.

Given that Maker auctioned MKR to raise 5.3M DAI it wouldn’t have been a big deal to have raised another 2-3M and offered it up in a compensation package yet to be determined. Raising the funds or allocating them would have gone a long way to assuaging the angst here and if the funds could have gotten out some of it would probably have dropped right back into Maker vaults and experienced this nice run from 200-300DAI/ETH. Now instead of 1ETH for 200DAI it is 1ETH for 300DAI meaning the cost to maker to compensate either has gone up to give same amount of collateral, OR (the more likely) whatever the amount of collateral returned will be going down.

Literally I am out of ideas at this point for how to get any movement one way or another here except for a singular poll that should be set to run until we get an executive level amount of MKR voting one way or another.

If anyone has better ideas at this point I’d love to hear them. WHile the Compensation commitee still grinds on this I think it would be great for vault owners to form their own Compensation group and put forward a proposal.

1 Like

As I wrote the compensation group the following is about as simple as it gets for governance.

Regarding ‘condensing’ the proposal. The simplest way for governance to deal with this is to set a pricetag and allow the group to figure out how to fairly distribute it.

  • Poll (1) Should compensation group continue to work on this issue, AND 1a for governance to put up a bounty for work on this - ongoing - and at completion one way or another. Not sure how/whether to include the whole compensation of the Compensation Plan group in poll 1 but I think governance needs to pony up for work done and work wanted.

  • Poll (2) Allocate Compensation for BT victions 0M, 1M, 2M, 3M, 4M, 5M DAI. After (1) we can think about (2).

  • (3) the whole ‘how’ part of compensation we simply leave aside because I think the discussion thorn is going to be (1) whether MKR wants to proceed with any plan. and then the real thorn (2) how much to fund it all with.

1 Like

A good first start is to halt the thinly veiled threatening language if you want to be taken seriously. Around these parts, you only get anywhere with constructive dialogue sans hyperbole (for instance, this is a “time bomb”). Nevertheless, if you are keen on your current approach and want to attack the Foundation, perhaps you should add your name to the class action lawsuit.

1 Like

I would have taken 60% in DAI, if you moved fast and payed it out instantly. Actually i would have doubled down and bought MKR directly for it just to celebrate the trust layer. Because MakerDAO is so slow and is causing more damage every day since 0-bid bull decapitation event - now - 100% in USD value (60% in DAI 40% in MKR) schould be sufficient and fair. I would take the 60% and buy MKR to celebrate the trust layer. Every day MakerDAO is not acting, the trust is waning…

In fact the right way was from the start to compensate with the MKR token. We users would have been more than happy. The auction was for nothing.

The MKR token does need more holders and community activity anyway.

Again - we are in a long position for crypto and short position for USD. DAI is just a reference for USD, nothing more. We want crypto, not DAI.

You know - many victims have lost their live savings, or a significant part of it. Some are in suicidal mood- i guess. And you want those people to think straight and put a proposal up?

Please act fast. The clock is ticking.

:rage: :rage: :rage:

1 Like

What MakerDAO wants are signatures for not to be sued. Because if I would sue, than I would go for the full compensation (I am a bit of a lawyer myself) lost gains included. I just don’t want to go trough the hassle. Believe me - You don’t want the hassle aswell.
60% DAI 40% MKR
Actually 100% MKR would be better.
Keep the DAI for governance expenses.
That simple it is.

@Kukkio I appreciate you’re unsatisfied with how the compensation plan is proceeding, but leaving post after post here complaining is not going to make anything happen any faster, and is going to leave people less inclined to compensate.

What are you expecting to happen that hasn’t already happened? The members of the community that are most motivated to work on compensation are working on compensation. Not all MKR Holders are on board with compensation, especially compensation via diluting MKR. The way to convince MKR Holders to compensate the effected parties is to produce a workable compromise that takes their concerns into account.

The reason that many MKR Holders are not on board with compensation is because the responsibility for the issue is shared between multiple parties.

Suicide is a permanent answer to a temporary problem. If you or anyone else is contemplating suicide, I’d encourage you to call a hotline in your area. You can find a list here.

To this, there is already a class action lawsuit against the Maker Foundation. I’m sure one of the others here can get you in touch with the people organising it.

2 Likes

Kukkio, as a bit of a lawyer, how would you sue MakerDAO?
Are you confusing MakerDAO (a DAO) with the Maker Foundation?

MakerDAO, the decentralized organization controlled by Maker Token Holders, has signaled an intention to compensate for the lack of an efficient liquidation market.

Also, if I may ask, do you have a vault which was liquidated and did not get competitive bids? If so, how do you calculate the amount that should have been returned if the liquidation market had been efficient?

While I personally in no way lost my life savings or am in a suicidal mood. I can understand people going through that. I kinda shrugged the loss of by now. It was a significant amount, but we can rebuild.

Problem really will be the angry people. Its very easy to tell in this thread, more and more people affected find their way into this forum.

Its only a matter of time before the news will come again and talk about Maker Dao and the 0 bid debacle. Luckily there are other options for stable coins out there, so us as users dont necessarily have to worry about defi. But if the Maker foundation wants to continue to exist and build more awesome products like Dai then they have to find a way to give the collateral back.

Simple as that. And again thanks so much @LongForWisdom and @MakerMan. But if you are not involved with the Maker foundation or close to Rune or whoever steers in this direction, then we cant win this battle.

You see, I said a bit - just a bit. Plus - I don’t go in to details, if i don’t intend to sue, don’t have the time for it. For the moment it is just a rant to wake some emotion arround this place…

Actually if there is the will to compensate, the math is as easy as it gets. The math is simple. Getting the people to act is difficult.

I think if you review all the discussions so far, you’ll see there is some complexity to it.
For example, the amount you get back depends on the price of Dai at the time of liquidation. Dai was expensive at that time because there was a severe liquidity crunch. And, it would have been even more expensive a large amounts of Dai were being bid on auctions.

1 Like

Nothing complex about it.

If we want to get 100% correct/fair, it’s difficult, or even impossible.
If one wants to get the mass of the moon, he/she would use some estimation, with some uncertainties. You can’t say it’s complicated and will take a long long time.
Back to this issue, yes, Dai was expensive, but nobody would complain if they get over-paid by 10%.
In fact, I think everyone would accept even if they get under-paid by 10%.

Do you have any evidence?

1 Like