Hey Viktor, I have a couple of items of feedback to give you about this Declaration. I’ll start with process-related things, then move on to what I feel are more substantial issues.
MIPs Process + Format
First, for a subproposal to be considered in the RFC phase, it needs to be both posted in the forum and a PR needs to be created and accepted by the MIP Editors that adds it to the MIPs github located here.
Second, given the above this should be in the #MIPs:conception category rather than loose in the MIPs category.
Third, the motivation section is meant to include the reasons why this proposal is being created, and how this benefits MakerDAO. I’m not sure that the contents of that section reflect that well in the current iteration. This brings us neatly to content…
I’ll be blunt here, my main issue with this proposal is that it comes off as if you’re trying to bribe MKR Holders to vote in favour of this partnership by offering REINNO governance tokens (either intentionally or not). At the very least, this is in poor taste, at the worse it can be considered a vampire attack on the Maker Protocol (sucking expertise into what could be a direct competitor and disrupting the incentive alignment between MKR Token Holders and the MKR Protocol).
This sort of proposal is one of the few that I would seriously consider blocking on the grounds that it has the potential to cause a shutdown and fork of the Maker Protocol. So that’s the first issue.
The second issue is that even if this Declaration were to pass, it’s unlikely you or MKR Holders would be able to compel any of the Maker Community to actually assist REINNO in any meaningful way. You’re proposing to reward MKR Holders with governance tokens for work / effort contributed by individuals or mandated actors. Even if MKR Holders explicitly confirmed via token vote a statement like ‘We want the mandated actors to prioritize working with REINNO to develop their competing stablecoin’, I think it highly unlikely that they would do so, and again, this leads to instability in governance and potentially a fork of the Maker Protocol.
Third, this proposal is entirely separate from the onboarding proposal you’ve produced, and I have no idea why (beyond receiving free governance tokens) any MKR Holder would vote for this, when we can approve REINNO for use as collateral without assisting you in developing a potentially competing stablecoin.
I did want to wait to post this until after the meeting the other day, and I hope this helps shed a little more light on why I was so uncharitable on that call.