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