Maker's Oasis on Polygon (Matic)?

Polygon (previously Matic) is catching like wild fire. Every single blue chip project is now joining and adding support for Polygon.

It started with Aave just 12 days ago, now its market on Polygon is almost $2B worth.
Now OpenSea and PoolTogether as well.
You can see Polygon’s twitter account with a growing number of daily integration announcements.

Polygon is getting support from the older Ethereum community so it seems to align well with the Makerdao community. But maybe I am missing something?


Thread TLDR

  • Optimism is coming
  • Not an easy problem
  • Maker Protocol Engineering team is working hard on the multichain strategy (c.f. link below), including Polygon, other L2s and L1s

Relevant threads below:

May 2021: Top Quality Post: A Multichain Strategy and Roadmap for Maker

March 2021: Announcing the Optimism Dai Bridge with Fast Withdrawals by the Protocol Engineering Core Unit Team — you should be aware about this effort before commenting

Jul 2020: Should MakerDAO/DAI run Simultaneously on another Chain?


Heh, there are blue chips in crypto? :slight_smile:

There is a Core Unit for scaling DAI–check it out

Heard AAVE on Polygon was struggling–what happened? But for sure, it seems like Polygon, BSC, and Solana are firing on all cylinders at the moment. Both Solana and BSC protocols have struggled with traffic issues. Kind of like NBA Top Shots…


Leading crypto projects with strong adoption are definitely being called crypto blue chips across many crypto media outlets. MakerDAO is definitely in the very first ones getting that flattering categorization :slight_smile:

Thx for the pointer

I don’t know what you mean. Maybe I missed something. Matic became Polygon, almost at the same time QuickSwap was launched. Shortly after Aave was launched on Polygon and got huge TVL. That’s my overall understanding so far.

Yes. Many L1s and L2s being launched. That’s it, many projects going multichains as a result. I think it’s a good thing, the whole space always tends to give power in the hand of the users - i.e. Ethereum allowing anyone to create a token easily, Uniswap allowing any tokens to be listed. Now users will be able to choose the chains they want to use.

NBA Top Shot isn’t on Solana nor BSC. It’s on flow blockchain of Dapper Labs, the team behind Crypto Kitties, Cheese Wizards and Dapper Wallet among other things. Only issue with Flow I would say is that they seem very far from the ethos of open source communities like Ethereum or MakerDAO.


Ya–totally forgot–FLOW that centralized blockchain :slight_smile:
I also think they’re doing an NFT collection of a Motorcycle Sport–not sure I’m not into motor-bike racing

So, yes–I believe AAVE was down for a few hours a few weeks back. But that’s all in the past–things seem to be working much better now.

All-in-all I believe the community here is waiting for Optimism–and some of the proposed Core Units will look to scale DAI via other alt ways–this is where you want to push the narrative with building Oasis on Matic, a.k.a Polygon (for some reason I prefer Matic)

1 Like

The Polygon chain of course has its potential issues, on being the lags it creates for the overall systemic needs of Maker to both liquidate and re-collateralize. An example of this problem would be that if the Oasis on Polygon had significant liquidation needs, the DAO participants who place bids would need the the funds available on both networks simultaneously to not drain liquidity and attention from the monitoring of the primary Eth based ecosystem. The duplication of systems here with additional “bridge time lags” is one of several risks of utilizing an Oasis, HOWEVER, I strongly support the creation of an Oasis with an overall Oasis Debt Ceiling that is monitored and limited so as to not be allowed to compromise the entire system by growing too large before proving viable and reliable as an ecosystem for Maker to grow in. I think the onboarding of new users would be valuable and even as other scaling solutions emerge, the interoperability of Polygon and other Ecosystems such as Polkadot(I really want maker to consider that as well), will eventually allow Maker to form an integrated extended web of banking systems, all tied back to the original super central bank that issues Maker tokens on Eth as always. As with systems in the history of all banking, if one subsystem implodes, the mitigation of the losses can be absorbed and the system allowed to grow stronger with each successive test, so long as the system remains relevant and functioning. At this moment in time , Maker is losing some relevancy and that is dangerous, while functionailty is being impaired by the limits of ethereum for smaller users whcih are critical to Makers true long term value as something more than a lender to the Defi yield farming system. We need average people to have access to borrowing Dai again.


Polygon’s TVL is now ranked #4 on DefiPulse at $6.6bn with 1-day growth at 14% (compared to Maker’s $10.2bn with 1-day growth at 4%). Recent crypto price volatility have resulted in astronomical gas fees at peak periods. This has resulted in a migration towards L2 chains.

Aave, Curve Fi, SushiSwap, 1inch & others have also replicated their applications on Polygon. There are also bridges built between ETH, BSC and Polygon - so there is very little friction towards migration. Once you are on Polygon, you pay close to nothing in gas fees because of the blockchain design.

The Maker community looks to be sleeping on this development. Yet, as crypto creativity doesn’t sleep - Qi Dao seems to be trying to make a copy of Maker on Polygon:

!!! Is anyone concerned about this? Or should we wait for Polygon to be ranked #1 on DefiPulse before we start to treat this seriously? !!!


Matic is a side-chain and does NOT inherit Ethereum’s security guarantees like rollups do. May as well move to BSC then and forget decentralization.

These are distractions from the work we need to do on Ethereum. Maker’s brand invokes trust and we should not erode that by jumping onto the fad of the month.


Is the plan to put all our chips on Optimism? Seems that way right now. Though see also Growth CU weekly update: May 14-20

Protocol Eng Core Unit is planning to post next week a comprehensive outline of how we today think about different ways we can scale Maker protocol for the community discussion. We have extensively researched different scaling solutions, Polygon included. It is important for the community to properly understand the security tradeoffs of various solutions and what additional risks they add to the security of Maker protocol from both Vault users, MKR holders and DAI holders point of view. We are working extensively with both Ethereum Foundation researchers, all major Rollup providers (Optimism, Arbitrum, Starkware, ZkSync and others), we are also looking at how sidechains such as Polygon and Skale and other L1 chains (EVM compliant, like BSC, Avalanche) and non-EVM compliant (like Solana) can be used to scale Maker protocol.


Untill you can pay EVERYTHING with DAI, you’ll always need something centralized, is not forgetting about decentralization, is that we need to grow and be everywhere, that any kind of person can use DAI. So why don’t we just complain about having DAI on a CEX like Binance, or even the same Nexo that is our biggest partner. We can’t keep with this Mainnet Maximalism, what doesn’t evolves just dies and stays in the past.


Niiiice!!! This is MUSIC to my EARS :ear:t4: So stoked!

I remember posting this comment in July 2020–at the start of the Yield Farming Craze–I guess we were All not ready for what was to come and got caught up becoming a Farmer.


This isn’t really a fair characterization of Polygon. BSC is openly hostile to Ethereum and seeks to undermine ETH dominance. Polygon has always been ETH-aligned and continues to be supportive of the ETH ecosystem, with vital Polygon functionality rooted in Ethereum smart contracts and the chain regularly checkpointing to Ethereum.

You’re absolutely correct that Polygon (or any sidechain) does not inherit ETH L1 security. Polygon does appear to be a great stop-gap scaling solution to seamlessly maintain exposure to ETH-based assets and optimally utilize them across defi platforms though, at least until rollups are refined and more widely implemented. Moving collateral on Polygon during last week’s crash was nearly instant and low-cost, versus the thousands of dollars and hours of time I had to spend moving assets around L1 for peace of mind.


Fair enough, you’re right that it’s a lot worse to align ourselves with BSC than Polygon and my characterization was a little uncharitable.

But here’s the thing - by the time we develop a product that is on Polygon, there’s no guarantee that it will still be the leading L2 on Ethereum. Contrast that with rollups (especially zk rollups) which in some sense are the best you can do on L2 so it’s worth putting effort into development there.

You’re right that Polygon is a great stop gap. But if it is a stop gap, why bother tailoring our product to it instead of having a more long term vision?


I hear you - wouldn’t want to handicap development on rollups. I’m not a dev so I don’t know how difficult it is to launch a dapp on Polygon. I’m 100% making an assumption here, but with the rapid rollout of major L1 daps onto Polygon I thought perhaps it was relatively simple from a development standpoint.

If it can be done without setting back development on rollups, it would likely boost usage of Maker during that transitional period. Especially since Polygon is so happy to offer promotional incentives for major defi launches. I would much rather be borrowing on Maker on Polygon than anything else.

Aave & Curve are already on Polygon? Polygon is built on top on Ethereum so code migration should not be drastically different?

Agreed on promotional incentives - Polygon will pay for our marketing incentives and we get to free-ride on Aave & Curve’s network effects (since they have DAI pools and users will definitely prefer getting native DAI on Polygon as opposed to bridging DAI from Ethereum which will require them to pay the stupid Ethereum gas fees).

1 Like

What seems concerning is that Maker is reacting to the market instead of planning to be ahead of competitors. I think that Maker should be one of the first protocols to launch in the new L2s, even just offering the main L2 token (or ETH) as collateral, and nothing else.

Another option could be offering DAI bridges to all the L2 and gathering people to use DAI and promote the maker ecosystem.

I think is important to be fast and agile to generate adoption, and if Maker does not do it, others will. Also, I don’t understand all the internals of Maker and there might be many arguments about why/how this is difficult to achieve.

1 Like

You definitely should read this top quality recent forum post (27th May 2021) where the Protocol Engineering Core Unit shares its in-depth analysis of the various L2 solutions and L1s getting tractions : their pros and cons, risks, current usage, and so on A Multichain Strategy and Roadmap for Maker

Another interesting thread that’s specific to Optimism (March 2021) also by the Protocol Engineering Core Unit Team: Announcing the Optimism Dai Bridge with Fast Withdrawals


Thanks, I just finished reading them a couple of mins ago. Following the forum threads. It is interesting that the steps are being taken, with caution, and with a sense of doing things well. The articles are great.

I hope also that in the end some risk is taken, for the greater good.


As Adrien said, Maker is analyzing all the options in detail without jumping on the first hype-train. I think is the correct way to go, as developing on different scaling solutions without proper discussion & analyze could be poorly spent man-power. The engineering team seem to be already under enough pressure.
Rushed solutions could be good short term but an insecure solution could be very damaging

1 Like

Now that sounds interesting in the crypto world. The most interesting fact is the Matic network works on a Proof-of-Stake consensus and possesses a sidechain of the mechanism and a group of validators. These validators promise to increase the TPS, thereby also reducing transaction charges. The network works on a Plasma framework that exceptionally resolves Scalability issues preventing network congestion.

Source : Coinpedia