MakerMan delegate platform

Key Info
Name: MakerMan
Forum: @MakerMan
RocketChat: Maker_Man
Email: [email protected]
Delegate Address: 0x22d5294a23d49294Bf11D9db8bEda36e104ad9b3
Delegate Vote Tracking Link: MCD Voting Tracker

Core Values

  • Stakeholder Recognition - Micro to Macrocosm. People are important, too.
  • Secure, Sustainable and Scalable Systems.
  • Importance of Data Analytics to Goal achievement and problem solving.

Delegation Statement

My service to Maker involves the following commitments:

  • In good and bad economic times, look out for the all the important Maker work-economic stakeholders (MKR holders, vault owners, DAI holder and users, MakerDAO, DeFI in general etc.).
  • To looking at the system of Maker from both the internal microcosms of contracts, people, operations to the greater macrocosms of DeFI and the real world in terms of governance, law, and finance.
  • To creating Safe, Scalable and Sustainable Systems as Simply and Efficiently as possible.
  • To growing Maker in a way that is Sustainable for the long term.
  • To use Data driven analytics to drive decision-making to achieve goals. Look towards the future by analyzing the past and present.

I arrived at Maker just as the transition from Single Collateral DAI (SCD/SAI) to MultiCollateral DAI (MCD/DAI) was occuring in November 2019. My goals are to consistently to ask the hard questions, look towards building a sustainable future, and doing this by looking at the system from the perspectives of all players using any and all available data. My ideas tend not to be implemented immediately because they break the mold of the ‘what-are-we-doing-today’ mentality that almost every organization I have been a part of does. Therefore, I look for the things that yield the greatest return in the shortest time for the least cost that is good for all stakeholders and the entire ecosystem. I see Maker as rapidly approaching the scale of many smaller nations financially, and so it is going to have to work at a fully international scale and view to navigate deep and difficult waters as it grows from 10B to 1T in assets under management. Maker desperately needs a diverse set of greater minds to focus efforts, both to be efficient, effective and forward thinking. In the highly competitive crypto/defi environment Maker needs to move faster, do it more efficiently, and above all, be willing to be first. This will mean some possible mis-steps, and some potential losses, but with proper management, Maker can continue to stand as a key leader and mover in the fast-paced blockchain Decentralized Finance space.

My goals:

  1. Grow Maker to becoming a $1T entity with a focus on anti-fragility, decentralization, reducing systemic and user risk, using data/analytics to drive goal achievement.
  2. Continue to work to drive Maker into being one of the most secure, reliable, fully transparent protocols in the space.
  3. Exemplify excellence, integrity, honesty, and openness in the space with action by looking at both the microcosm of the DAO and system of contracts, and Maker integration into the larger DeFI ecosystems as well as how it will integrate into greater Real World of assets, finance, law and politics.

My introduction to Maker was started with a new forum thread where I encouraged people to introduce themselves and to learn the Maker basics.

Is there a thread here to welcome new forum members? leading to
The Official Welcome Thread

I have a few hundred posts on various topics related to my above core values above that can be reviewed here.

Key highlights. After BlackThursday(BT) the effects on vault owners were still not recognized. I started up a thread for vault holders to vent, which lead to my work spearheading the Black Thursday Report for the community and an initiative regarding compensation for affected vault holders.

While BT compensation failed to compensate affected vault owners, it allowed everyone in the community to speak and laid the issue to rest for the vast majority of the community. Hence was a success from this perspective.

For various reasons, I burned out on the Maker community for a time and took a break.

Without compensation at levels above my current employ, my ability to work will be limited to what is strictly necessary to steward over the Maker system to fulfill the above commitments. As a delegate, I promise to be respectful even if I vehemently disagree with a view, listen to all parties no matter what their views, to be a fair decision maker, and open with my views. Good data or cogent argument can and will change my mind on any topic. I also pledge near 100% poll participation unless acts of God interviene. I will stand by all executives to secure the system unless I have strong opposition toward them, in which case, I will make my views publicly known.

Potential Conflicts and Alignments of interest.

  • I have a vault and typically borrow from time to time.
  • I am a MKR owner my ownership percentage is small relative to my total portfolio.
  • I do hold DAI most times in various contracts.
  • Not employed by Maker Foundation or MakerDAO and hold no position in the DAO.

Income from Maker (DAI)

  • 4K for the BT report (5/2020)
  • 6.3K for work on the BT compensation group. (1/2021)
  • 8.4K via SourceCred DAI rewards. (inception to current.)

Finally will do my best to communicate with the community regarding my views and positions on upcoming polls and executives, make myself available via e-mail and private forum communication. I also agree to the Maker delegate Code of Conduct as posted 20210816.

Waver of liability.

By delegating to MakerMan you acknowledge and agree that MakerMan will not be held liable for any form of damages or losses related to your delegation of your MKR to MakerMan. By delegating your MKR you still assume full responsibility for votes made on your behalf by MakerMan due to your ownership of MKR. It is your responsibility to understand the risks and costs related to delegation of your MKR, and specifically affirm and agree that at all times you have complete control over this by adding or removing your MKR from my delegation contract.


20210813 Actual vote.

Still coming to grips with various CU MKR budget requests.

Intended vote
closes on some of these in about 8hrs.
20210818_1132 UTC.

  • Reduce Vault Liquidation Ratios - August 16, 2021 - yes - after discussion
  • Onboarding PAX Peg Stability Module - August 16, 2021 - yes
  • Community Greenlight Poll - CGFF-DROP (Cauris Global Fintech Fund DROP) - August 16, 2021 - yes
  • Community Greenlight Poll - NCP01-DROP (Nebula Capital Partners DROP) - August 16, 2021 - yes
  • Community Greenlight Poll - CNC1-DROP (CapitalNow Cannabis DROP) - August 16, 2021 - yes - and I want to comment - this is a firm in a Canadian jurisdiction. People seem to be concerned over legislation. I know a number of players in the US cannibus industry. This industry is not going away and have growing lobbying power due to the growing financial size of the industry and growth potential. Put simply cannibus for decades has been a lost business opportunity not just due to the significant medical benefits, but also the recreational use aspect. If we manage DC and risk via SF there shouldn’t be an issue.

My only issue with these DROP/Tinlake structures is I am not seeing a clear legal analysis of the contract structures as I am of the 6s structures. I hope that we control these DCs until we get a solid legal opinion/analysis report on the DROP/TinLake legal structures by independent legal consultants.

A general note here.

I will try to put up my “Intended vote positions” as early as possible so supporters and detractors can make their cases to me here for a possible vote change. I also want anyone delegating to me to be able to see my intended vote and make their case for why they are supportive or against my position.

7 Likes - Executive supported.

6s FINALLY about to come online with a 15M DC. @mrabino1 and 6s come on down!

Update on DROP/TinLake.

I think given the still open issues here it would be prudent to limit DC until critical path legal structure contract issues are settled.

Stance on MKR Compensation and CU compensation generally is that Maker should move to a model where full competitive salaries are paid in DAI, and MKR is given as a bonus in direct relation to the DAI protocol revenue during the periods of interest. If MKR doesn’t make money contractors shouldn’t get bonuses, but in every case no matter if MKR protocol makes 0 DAI, worst case Maker should flop MKR to raise DAI to cover contractor salaries in DAI. Goal here is a clear optics by CUs building their own longer term DAI reserves so they have good handle on at least 1 and preferrably 3 years of contractor budget into the future. Put simply if MKR compensation is strictly a bonus compensation that is tied to protocol making net positive DAI revenue this is both good for contractors (known terms) and for the protocol (by not giving out MKR bonus compensation when protocol is losing money) is Sustainable into the indefinite future. This model fully aligns both contractor needs and bonus incentives between all stakeholders.

1 Like

Poll votes:

Flash loan fee to 0 - yes.
Solar x Proposal - no.

I want to be clear. I want to see more solar proposals, but ideally these should be brownfield developments not greenfield ones, or converting roofs of large building complexes in cities, where ever. Also I would like to see these more concentrated in the southwest. I welcome the proposer to bring more projects but would encourage them to have some skin in the game. The land owner being ‘part of the project’ just means everyone else is laying off the land risk part of the deal on someone else.

I don’t see the players have sufficient investment stake or commitment. From what I hear the only reason they are proposing this deal to Maker is to ‘make more money’ because they could have sold it to blackrock. So if I don’t care about the merits, sustainability and I just want to beat blackrock to some nice deal I might just say yes. Unfortunately beating blackrock to win a project isn’t my sole reason.

I come back to core principles stated in my platform.

Stakeholder recognition

The reasons I am saying no to Solar X project are as follows:

Not sustainable

  • Greenfield solar development the least sustainable model. There are many better places one can do solar developments (brown fields, large buildings, deserts, anywhere but highly prized farmland needed for food production).

See a 2008 article from Scientific American which shows what I believe is the best plan for the US to move forward sustainably on Solar energy. At the time this article came out the US government response was too costly and therefore not politically viable. Since then the US debt has grown another 15T (still growing btw) with the ‘infrastructure bill’ tossing another $1T over 10 years and a paltry 65B of that to upgrade the US electrical grid and invest in renewables far short of what is really needed and clearly not what is suggested in the SA article.

As is usual government falls far short on planning, finances and political will to do the right thing.

Given well respected scientists have given a vision for the future now 13 years ago. Government, and Maker would do well to reject what is not sustainable, and support what is.

  • Stakeholder recognition When I started researching the pros and cons of converting farmland into solar I found quite a bit of community political backlash which makes one wonder not just if this is a good idea generally but whether this is something communities want. (will fill with links later - but I found enough articles, references, referendums, and communities strongly against various proposals to be concerned zoning would not be granted on this but if one searches one can find anything. My problem was this stuff came out rapidly not in some extended digging). One thing I will say given political connections with significant experience in these zoning arenas is that there have been many cases where a whole community has been completely against a project and the project was still passed by the elected officials to the utter dismay of the people. Ask a question - why if this project was so good would the farmer continue to farm part of the property and transform the rest. If this was so wonderful for the community and they were welcoming to this would the farmer and developer even bother to farm part of this property.?

  • All of this is contingent on permit approval. Not entirely clear to me what happens to this loan if this doesn’t materialize.

  • I have other concerns and think Maker can pick better projects (particularly in solar) and what is worse if we signal to RWF that we will take on any old project and put up not even the slightest hesitation on any of these(for any reason) that Maker will find it self dealing with a deluge of projects with higher and higher risk eventually putting the system at risk.

1 Like

I am generally against doing work to add things that can’t and won’t generate significant borrowing at this time. It is a waste of effort for little actual return. Maker needs to be focused on getting to 1T not by doing this 1M-10M at a time but looking at where we get 1-10B at a time. Institutional vaults, and RWA should be key focus here not the next up and coming tokens unless they have caps 1B or greater imho.

MC of RAI 59M
MC of RARE 1.6M

Minimum borrow caps should be at least 100M and really 1B or greater unless growth or biz can make a significant PR, or business growth case for addition.

Community Greenlight Poll - RAI (Rai Reflex Index) - September 6, 2021 - yes - really would rather wait on this until the MC is significantly larger given time and expense for return here but no reason to stop this from discussion.
Community Greenlight Poll - RARE (SuperRare) - September 6, 2021 - no - at this time no this MC is just too small yet.

Feel free to convince me otherwise as I have not voted yet.

Voted - yes to RAI even though I think the MC is too low, only because growth is pretty high and no reason to stop discussions on this one.
Voted - no to RARE as the MC is just too small to justify the work at this time. - supported.

I have some issues with coupling MKR rewards to salary vs. bonuses and would like a more sustainable approach to these rewards models that decouples MKR bonus from salaries proper. I also have general concerns over a massively growing Maker system cost via growing CUs and growing CU budgets. For now I am going to let this run, and then deal with the issue when revenues do not meet expenditures… Lets just hope we can continue to grow DAI and revenues from it.

More later…


I wanted to thank my first delegatee.

anstey.eth 0x6ce1e666b5e943a526148f88d3da2783a670cee0 for delegating ~40.13MKR to me.

I really appreciate the support. This might not seem like a big deal but every little bit counts. In fact I would feel much better getting to 25,000 MKR via 100 or 1000 or more people. Feel free to comment here or private message me with issues, concerns, ideas as this will help me be a better delegate.

This in conjunction with my own work on MKR governance participation rewards gave me some interesting ideas. I now have my hands on some data thank you to @tmierzwa for looking into the quality of the data and getting me datasets so I can do some governance analysis that hopefully will lead to some nice governance analytics and a State of MakerDAO governance report.

I also want to formally support the addition of what I consider will be one of many key CUs going forward and support @tmierzwa to head it.

I am still looking at budget before I have comment or lend support but on cursory glance doesn’t look ‘unreasonable’ for a core unit I have considered necessary since before Black Thursday and look forward to working with @tmierzwa to getting Maker some top notch analysis. I already have ideas for general analysis that once done with Maker probably could be sold to other DAOs to generate income for the DI CU to help offset costs and grow the unit into a full on-chain data analytics unit to compliment Maker businesses.


Voting Intention Polls September 13, 2021

Intention is to vote yes to offboard KNC as a collateral type . KNC has 138M MC with barely any vault use.

Intention is to vote yes to onboard Gelato USDC-DAI as a collateral type.

Intention is to vote yes to Adopt the Debt Ceiling Instant Access Module (DC-IAM) for PSM-PAX-A. I want to make a single statement about the PSMs in general. The PSM was only intended to be a short term approach to dealing with DAI PEG and provide DAI liquidity. My understanding also is that during an ES these will no longer function, oracles on prices are permanently set to 1 (basically disabled). A solid PEG might be good for developing business but when I examine the price fluctuations of all other stablecoins - not one has a PEG as tight as DAI. This is a very strong constraint and in conjunction with my post on the Maker Trilemma - ala Impossible Trinity means Maker must follow market rates or face a carry trade driving capital into or out of the PSMs should Maker rates diverge from Market. Limitations on collateral in the future could have significant implications for the PEG generally (both up and down). This also has strong implications regarding any and all fixed rate proposals and Institutional Vaults

Intention is to vote yes to Ratification Poll for GovAlpha Core Unit Budget Q4 2021 to Q1 2022 (MIP40c3-SP29).

Intention is to vote yes to Ratification Poll for Risk Core Unit MKR Compensation (MIP40c3-SP25). I am decidedly against including retroactive rewards on a CU by CU basis as these should be pooled together so everyone can be treated fairly. I also believe MKR rewards should be bonuses related to system performance-profit to be sustainable.

Intention is to vote yes to Ratification Poll for Modify Core Unit Budget - Sustainable Ecosystem Scaling (MIP40c3-SP31).

Intention is to vote yes to Ratification Poll for Collateral Engineering Services Core Unit, CES-001. Given that Maker intentions for growth are RWA and Institutional Vaults I have some concerns of overlap between CUs but I am convinced duplication of effort is a potential quality assurance. I have stated in the past to get both competition and quality in a decentralized business will cost 2-3x more than in a centralized business. There are key issues with having a single CU or group of individuals solely responsible for carrying on DAO functions. Single sourcing in any business for services is generally bad and leads to higher costs and greater inefficiencies. The best model is to actually offer up tasks for bid and to seek ways to develop a healthy market for sources for business services. There are many reasons a decentralized entity should be looking to create such a model. Here we can do it by having additional CUs with overlapping functions.

I intend to abstain from Ratification Poll for StarkNet Engineering Core Unit, SNE-001. I don’t have any real informational background on why this CU is necessary, nor whether anyone else can carry on its services should this unit go dark or offline.

I intend to vote yes to Ratification Poll for Development & UX Core Unit, DUX-001. So far work of this unit looks good. I would like to see some development of a broader market for services as stated above.

I intend to vote yes to Ratification Poll for Strategic Happiness Core Unit, SH-001. I like the idea of generating both PR and someone keeping an eye on general status of the DAO from a satisfaction standpoint. I think the return for the cost likely will be higher than expected but intend to monitor approach. It would be interesting for this unit to develop polls, and/or measurement metrics to monitor status using a scientific data driven approach.

I intend to abstain Ratification Poll for RWA Foundations (MIP58) . My concern here is that while this appears reasonable, it also appears to duplicate a number of efforts of our RWA’s. There is no real analysis presented as to how this MIP potentially could conflict with not just other MIPs as @PaperImperium suggests, nor a co-ordinated statement from our currently onboarded RWAs as to whether this structure negatively or positively impinges on their own already created structures. In short I don’t have a good handle on why this is necessary, or whether it affects current RWAs or is just looking to provide a framework for future RWAs.

20210914_0707 Update.
With gas costs pretty low submitted a tx to vote as above.

1 Like

Regarding MIP58, your comment is more on the legal structure.

First, it is my understanding that MakerDAO is looking for diversification. So adding one legal structure on the shelf is hardly an issue. We need a version of this in other jurisdictions, Cayman Island is not the solution to all RWA problems.

Moreover, providing better legal ownership of DROP tokens is an item in the on-chain securitization roadmap. The Cayman Foundation solves that. Another item is to provide a lender’s voice in the management. Again that needs this structure.

This MIP doesn’t affect the currents RWA and is not a requirement for further RWA. It provides a formalized way to extend MakerDAO governance in the real world.

Feel free to get in touch if you need more information.

1 Like

Not clear to me this is needed at this point, nor is there any discussion of implications of not being in the Cayman Islands. I also think it is a significant expense without firm justification (i.e. is there a RWA asking for these structures?)

The part of a lender voice is important but again this looks like duplication of legal effort at least in 6s case. As to DROP again it seems like MakerDAO is doing their legal work.

One of my main comments was understanding from the RWA players themselves whether MIP58 is actually wanted, needed, or whether it potentially interfered with the structures already created. Since I don’t have this yet I am simply abstaining on this MIP rather than voting no or yes.