MIP13c3-SP1: Declaration of Intent: (Forward Guidance)

MIP13c3-SP1: Declaration of Intent (Forward Guidance)


MIP13c3-SP#: 1
Author(s): Akiva Dubrofsky (@akiva)
Contributors: @vitalyr
Status: Formal Submission
Date Proposed: <2020-07-08>
Date Ratified: <yyyy-mm-dd>
Declaration Statement: MakerDAO intends to keep RP on Vaults as  transparent and stable as possible.
Declaration to Replace: n/a


Context and Motivation

  • Recognizing the necessity of Risk Teams and voters having the ability to react to any risk presented to the system at any time.
  • Aware of a reality of a risk averse Vault user base.

The following is declared:

Declaration Detail

  1. The MakerDAO community, will enact a working group titled “Vault Holder Advocacy Group” led by this proposal’s Author to identify particular factors that would result in changes to Risk Premia and other risk parameters thereby providing forward guidance to Vault users on the parameters attached to their vault. This group will invite collaboration from MakerDAO’s risk team/s.

  2. In light of concerns Vault holders have regarding transparency of parameters, MakerDAO intends to seriously consider the general guidelines of the working group after it has submitted its results.

This declaration is flexible in implementation while aiming to improve fairness for users. This declaration in non-binding.

Relevant Links


Excited to see the sort of response this gets. One thing I will note is that it’s not currently following the MIP13c3 template with regards to the preamble (see here: https://github.com/makerdao/mips/blob/master/MIP13/MIP13c3-Subproposal-Template.md)

Specifically the last two fields are missing:

MIP13c3-SP#: #
Date Proposed: <yyyy-mm-dd>
Date Ratified: <yyyy-mm-dd>
Declaration Statement:
Declaration to Replace: MIP13c3-SP# or n/a

The Declaration Statement is particularly important, as it acts as a short identifier of what the declaration is, which is used in the list in MIP13 to identify it.

For this subproposal I’d suggest something like:

“Maker Governance intends to limit changes to Risk Parameters unless the criteria included in MIP13c3-SP1 is met.” (Though this doesn’t touch on a working group, so perhaps Akiva can come up with a better statement)

I would say this is maybe the most interesting part of this declaration. @Akiva did you have any thoughts about this working group? Is it something you’d like to lead? Or did you have someone in mind?


Thanks @LongForWisdom

I will update the MIP, both here and on Github once more feedback accumulates.

Me and my team are happy to lead a working group. However we think if a governance effort is led exclusively by a company representing Vault owners it is a conflict of interest. For that reason I propose that someone co-leads it who is in the business of representing MKR holders, potentially someone from a risk team.

Ultimately we just don’t want to mix buy-side and sell-side in MakerDAO.

1 Like

I think that DOI’s such as this should be very specific. Are you able to boil this down at all? If the intention is, e.g. “MakerDAO intends to keep RPs on Vaults as transparent and stable as possible,” I would think that should be the DOI.


Thanks Greg,

Im going to make this a lot simpler prior to the formal submission.

I have just submitted an updated version of the proposal, it is much much simpler now.

Let me know if there’s any other changes you’d like to see so I can adjust prior to formal submission.


I worry this sort of commitment-in-advance might cause issues. You’re asking Maker Holders to abide by guidelines they haven’t seen yet, created by a group of which the membership isn’t entirely known.

This does imply a level of trust in you and the working group to provide reasonable guidelines.


I have now added a line saying it is non binding, also I have changed the language to say “seriously consider” rather than “abide by” which as you said sounds too strict.

EDIT: This is relevant:


Presentation: Akiva Dubrofsky, Declaration of Intent Sub-Proposal

(link is time-anchored to the start of the presentation at ~22:00)


If anybody has any feedback on why this passed two rounds but failed at Executive, please message me.