Mindmapping MakerDAO Discussions

Hi all,

Prompted by a number of community prioritization questions, I have attempted to mock up the following as a representation of topics being discussed on the forum and in RocketChat.

Here as a PDF for better readability.

The initial purpose of doing so is to capture everything being discussed and to ask the community - what is missing?

Secondly, assuming everything is captured, and people consider it to be a useful exercise, it may form a basis from which to debate what our short and long term priorities are, and in-turn build a strategy for how we align and focus resources.

It could be a good exercise for someone outside of the core dev team to build up a list of metrics to quantify relative value, for example this could be according to:

  • User type - relevance to Dai user, Vault and/or MKR holder
  • Resources - is there a scoring we can apply to determine effort and cost
  • Complexity - how do technical or regulatory difficulties influence the effort required
  • Duration - whether this is beneficial in the short or long term

Happy to hear your thoughts and any additions, thanks!

*Note, this is not a PECU initiative, this is just something I wanted to be able to illustrate to help map out a product backlog/pipeline which I have found difficult to do without clear priorities as we tend to be focused on immediate initiatives.

21 Likes

With regards to multi-chain strategy perhaps add DeversiFi as part of the L2 view?

Seeing some traction there and no DAI in the rear view mirror: Snapshot

Maybe @nadia @MarianoDP are already in talks with such

Otherwise good stuff! Muchas gracias!

4 Likes

Great job @Derek! My mind sometimes looks like this :wink: it’s good to see there are similar minds around.

L2 idea by @ElProgreso is great, I would not add much more here (it’s already quite complex) unless there’s something of Top Priority missing. Happy to help sorting it out alongside other Makers.

3 Likes

Ahh good catch! Indeed, GovAlpha have been exploring Snapshot for off-chain polls. Thank you! I’ll batch up any additional items and update the image :pray:

2 Likes

@Derek Off the top of my head, a key one off the “Surplus Buffer” node is a RWA credit provision node. Context: as RWA deals more closely with credit risk than crypto-native, we need to cater for modelling and setting aside forward-looking “provision pools” for credit default.

2 Likes
  • Bridges on oracles? Or is that redundant
  • Should webpage resources live on this map? (makerdao.com & all the core unit website(s) etc.)

I think this mind mapping would be a good exercise for topics that aren’t direct implementations on product too.

Thanks for putting this together @Derek - prioritization and investments have been on my mind quite a bit recently and I’ve been ruminating on how to best discuss this with the community. I think Maker desperately needs a unified vision that we can all align on and then strategize on how we achieve that.

Setting that aside for a minute, there are some base financial metrics that apply to any start-up trying to achieve their vision and topping that list is free cash flow. As most people know, FCF is a start-up’s lifeblood. At this stage, our FCF is largely a function of our revenue which is made up of Stability Fee Income, Liquidation, and PSM Fees. Stability Fees are the most reliable form of revenue, being more recurring and predictable in nature.

Today, 81% of that source of revenue is Ethereum vaults, that goes up to 93% if we include WBTC. This is the DAO’s core ‘business’ and it’s survival is dependent on providing the best customer experience possible (based on price, ease of use, features, etc.). How do we measure success?

Most important IMO are:

  1. Market Share of ETH and BTC deposits - growing Dai and even total risk assets outstanding is not enough. If we are losing market share in a growing market, we are falling behind competitors and will not survive when the market slows/significantly stops growing
    (a). Real World Asset Growth (measured in onboarded RWAs and Dai drawn) & Other Strategic Long Term growth Initiatives that drive revenue outside of the DAO’s core products
  2. Vault User Growth (measured in each respective collateral). Are we taking share from growth of existing vaults or are we attracting new users to open vaults as well? (breadth vs depth)
  3. DAI Market Share (measured in integrations and on chain transaction volumes)

There are dozens of KPIs that roll up to and support these metrics - identifying them, allocating resources, and holding ourselves accountable against them will be critical in order for us to be successful.

The traditional way to prioritize strategic investments is to do what is called an NPV analysis (net present value). For those unfamiliar, a NPV analysis calculates the present value of cash inflows and outflows over a period for a project and if the inflows are greater than the outflows, you would accept the project. If you have a multiple projects and cannot fund them all, you would invest in the highest NPV projects.

My view is that any investment the DAO makes should support one of the three KPIs mentioned above. This is not an exhaustive list but the further an investment proposal deviates from supporting the aforementioned KPIs, the more it would need to be justified, IMO. Regarding the bullets you mentioned, all would be taken into consideration in this type of analysis.

User type - KPIs 1 - 3
Resources - cost calculated as hourly rate * hours required to complete
Complexity - mostly relates to time but if there are outside legal/technical (external) expenses these would be estimated as well
Duration - all else equal the longer a project takes to implement, the higher its risk due to future year cash flows being discounted at a higher rate

2 Likes