MIP39c2-SP15: Adding AmaZix Marketing Core Unit, AMZX-001

Thanks for your question Jenn,

Amazix uses best practices project management methodologies and plans each client project with resource allocation, tasks, milestones, and dependencies against the total capacity of the firm. Should Amazix be honored and selected to provide MakerDao with strategic marketing, action planning, and delivery services, we will ensure Maker Dao is at the top of the agency’s priorities through all stages of our engagement: from initial planning, design and development, through to delivery, continuous improvement and reporting.

Further Amazix plans resources (skills, talent) across client project timelines, with a policy of double, or triple-capacity (back-up resources) based on a risk management strategy to ensure successful project delivery.

The Account Services team is staffed with Partners, and Senior, Intermediate and Associate level professionals that can double up and backup our professional team members. Our Creative Solutions teams are staffed similarly, with creative award-winning horsepower, redundancy and capacity.

We will answer the next question (#1) on Monday with a capabilities deck and recent work examples, and look forward to receiving more questions from this forum and are happy to provide comprehensive, transparent answers to the group.

1 Like

Thanks for the feedback Al. It sounds like you have a solid system in place for staffing assignments and anticipating increases/decreases in workload per client. I’m curious what you think are the main advantages/dis-advantages of using an external agency like Amazix instead of having a dedicated in house team. I’m sure this question comes up a lot when pitching new clients .


In advance of this question, I saw a post from a mobile phone screenshot (not posted here) about issues related to Dai that are not marketing related, but supply constraint related (not minting enough Dai) - And my answer relates to some marketing work we delivered for FRAX (a novel undercollateralized stablecoin that maintains a strong peg). - This is something we do not directly address in our proposal because it is not ‘marketing related within the scope/proposal/request for proposal’ - But relates to sample work we have performed. To quickly answer this valid issue: Supply constraints is not a direct marketing issue, but an operational one. We are not tasked as a marketing agency, to handle tokenomics over or undercollateralization, or other operations, or issues not related to marketing. Restricting demand is one solution (turn off the marketing spigot), and incentivizing increased supply (to mint more DAI) through incentives and marketing communications.
In our previous work with FRAX, our work was related to community management, positioning, writing and blog posts to position them as an innovation leader in stablecoins. The work was not related to demand-generation. There is more than demand generation in marketing: positioning, thought leadership, positioning, competitive/rivalry strategy that impacts the perceived trustability of a stablecoin not related to demand generation per se but the long term viability perception, usability (reliability and variability around the peg) and liquidity issues some stablecoins face. We need to quickly understand the algorithms, Curve AMOs and other types of AMOs to stabilize the price through its FRAX token.

For example, in FRAX’s case their peg was held by price peg adjustments driven by arbitrage by the general community. The demand/profit incentive was required by FRAX to maintain its strong peg. In this way the profit motive coupled by thought leadership (positioning, whitepaper, articles, blogs, community engagement) was required, coupled with the requisite awareness-level of FRAX to outperform its competitors. Our solution was not shilling-related but more of a consultative/thought leadership positioning strategy to establish credibility, trust and viability.

1 Like

Jenn, thanks for this really good question.

The Pros and Cons of Using an Agency vs In-House Marketing Team.

The advantages and disadvantages of hiring an external marketing agency vs building an in-house team can be categorized into 3 areas:

1. Cost - Advantage to InHouse Team

  1. Building an in-house blockchain marketing team (in-house agency) typically costs less as employees are compensated annually and have lower billable rates than agencies and contractors. However, if the team or business situation evolves where there requires the dissolution of the team, these marketing employees need to be either reassigned elsewhere or there is a termination cost involved (severance, vacation, and other termination costs) that can erode the cost advantage.
  2. Clients pay for the profit margin of a blockchain marketing agency.
  3. Agencies have larger economies of scale than in-house teams (media buying, software subscription costs (tech stack), project management that is spread over multiple clients. This erodes cost advantages of an in-house team.
  4. Larger Tier1 or Tier2 blockchain firms with larger resources can afford to pay for the best talent. This erodes or negates this advantage for an in-house team.

2. Skills - Advantage to Agencies

  1. Skills in blockchain design, strategy, copywriting, promotion, advertising, marketing processes, and efficiency are likely to be higher in agencies than in-house marketing teams. The reasons are manyfold:
1. Depth and breadth of experience in blockchain by agencies because of its client experience, give agency talent much more experience. Agency talent leverage this experience in strategy and execution to the benefit of other clients. The synergy between agency staff and clients accelerates learning, innovation and marketing through leadership more than an isolated in-house team. Creative talent, especially highly skilled want to work for an agency more than a typical blockchain startup for these reasons: range of experience, marketing project variety, agency reputation and esteem vs singular client reputation/esteem, and that the creative talent is the core business of an agency whereas in a blockchain startup or company, marketing is often viewed as an ‘evil-necessity’ or secondary function to its core technology (engineering) and can demoralize or demotivate creative staff and contractors. The best talent migrate to leading blockchain and creative agencies. Talent with strong agency experience on their resumes get better pay and opportunities.  Agency talent are motivated by building a diverse blockchain portfolio on their resume to get more work and better work, and thus more income.
2. InHouse staff probably have less industry experience than many blockchain agencies (not all).
3. Agencies may have shorter turnaround times than in-house teams because they can assign larger staff working in parallel (like community management teams) and teams during crunch periods (e.g., Roadshows, Token Sales, STOs, IDOs) that require high temporary throughput during a shorter time period.
4. In-house blockchain marketing skills tend to be broad and generalist rather than specialist or specific. E.g., agencies may have expertise in NFT growth hacking, yield farming and staking positioning, P2P wealth management blockchain platform marketing, cross-platform composability and cross-chain platform marketing, DeFi Wallets, blockchain investor sentiment market research for an agency).
5. Agencies like Amazix employ staff and contractors including adjunct and distinguished professors in marketing from leading global universities, as well as retired and current CEOs that have vast and deep strategic marketing experience, available on-call.

3. Dedicated Knowledge, Confidentiality - Advantage to InHouse Teams

  1. In-house teams understand the firm’s blockchain products, technology features, services, and technology better because of a singular focus. Agency staff must learn all their clients’ technologies and marketing strategies to a degree probably less than their client, but this is not true in many cases of dedicated agencies (Spark44, a dedicated agency founded by LandRover and Saatchi and Saatchi, as an example).
  2. There is less risk of confidentiality breaches/risk exposure to in-house teams (NDAs not required for in-house teams). However, clients who lose or terminate employees can break employee NDAs and confidentiality to their next employer. Disgruntled employees threaten this confidentiality and dedicated knowledge, which erodes the sense of control and confidentiality advantage.

4. Flexibility - Advantage to Agencies

  1. For the higher cost, clients get the flexibility of termination and quickly eliminate or reduce marketing expenses without longer-term liabilities (employee termination). If BTC prices go down, and the market goes into bearish territory, clients have the flexibility to quickly reduce costs.
  2. Agencies with more extensive staff can provide added marketing capacity to clients experiencing rapid growth, especially in blockchain bull run-ups. There is no need to staff up, which can take 2-8 weeks for recruitment, onboarding, training, and team-building for in-house teams.

5. Control - Advantage in-house teams

  1. Clients with in-house team have a greater sense of control over their work/project deliverables. This is in part due to listening to and heeding the advice of an external agency and its counterparts. In-house teams are viewed as ‘on the same team,’ but not always.
  2. However, agencies with professional best-practices procedures and controls erode this advantage for in-house teams.

In the end, it is important to assess your situation given your circumstances to determine if it is more advantageous for you, or MakerDao, to hire an external agency versus building an in-house team given these factors, at any given time. These advantages may appear or disappear given your specific context. These characteristics are general observations and provide a guideline only and do not necessarily hold in every circumstance.

Of course we would welcome the discussion to determine if these advantages outweigh the disadvantages, given Maker Dao’s specific situation in a forthright and neutral way.


I am personally against AmaZix’s application as Marketing Core Unit. I have several objections but narrowed down to 2 (and softened the tone).

1. Cost
You can check out their proposed budget here: MIP40c3-SP20: Adding Budget to AmaZix Marketing Core Unit, AMZX-001

Both at my time at Maker as well as previous blockchain companies, I never seen “Marketing Research/Strategy” that cost $500,000 USD for 1 month. This is even higher than top legal consulting and legacy business consulting companies. Also, AmaZix or any marketing applicant should have researched or figured out strategy beforehand and offer to the governance, not asking the governance to pay the team to study about the protocol and figure out the strategy for a half million.

2. Questionable Background

If you examine the team’s background. It raises questions. For example, Al Leong worked at S4FECHAIN and BitCover. Based on many indicators, S4FECHAIN underperformed. Their social media also lacks engagement. I couldn’t find any info on BitCover which also shows lack of public engagement and exposure. If he couldn’t successfully market his own project before, how are we trusting him and the team to help Maker?



Also the fact that most of the team is engaged in so many different gigs is a red flag. I assume the team can’t put all of resources to help Maker. Yes, they might have junior roles that can assist them but that’s just inefficient and increasing the cost.

But overall, thank you for the application as well as responses


Thanks for raising your concerns about my qualifications and cost.

To address your questions, I was contracted as CEO for S4FECHAIN to help build their executive team and not operational, and this is not my own project. And due to the founder’s underperformance, I resigned (Al Leong Steps Down as CEO, S4FECHAIN). As for ‘social engagement’ experience, I personally have approximately 130,000 blockchain and marketing strategy followers on my personal twitter channel (https://twitter.com/iDesignStrategy) and may humbly be considered an influencer. This is just shy of MakerDao’s organizational-wide follower count of 158.9k followers. More importantly, and notably, I am a criminal informant for the FBI, SEC and Ontario Provincial Police for anti-money laundering and financial crimes and worked under a licensed financial services advisory called QRC HK and InfintoDAX in Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong. I have undergone KYC, Due Dilligence (DD) and Enhance Due Dilligence (EDD) in my roles. In the late 1990s, I have launched products for Apple (MacOS 8, Powerbooks and organized Apple’s Worldwide Developer’s Conferences for 5 years), launched Adobe Postscript 3, launched Sony’s HDTV platform worldwide, and launched IBM’s “e-business” global marketing campaign strategy back in the late 90’s. I started my career assigned at Ogilvy & Mather/Direct on a $40 million Microsoft global direct response account as well as being assigned to drive marketing for Intel and Visio. Very early on, I was a teaching assistant for an Advanced Marketing Management at the University of Toronto. I believe in a lifelong pursuit of learning. My personal and professional profile with portfolio, along with client testimonials and references can be viewed at: http://www.alleong.ca. There, you can find 3 years of market research studies I have conducted on the blockchain industry published with associates and a Phd-level business partner, Dr. Daniel Araya (Government Relations and Public Policy). I am a Senior Partner of AION Advisors, a Marketing Advisor for NULS.io, and formerly for CertiK, QRC HK Limited/Infinito/Moonstake.io, Wealth Square SAS, OTC Trade, and a former marketing campaign advisor for Token2049, raised USD 31 million in an ICO for a blockchain trading terminal platform in 2018, developing realtionships with Binance Labs, OKEX, Fusang and NASDAQ. I am a former consultant to the British Columbia Legislative Assembly (for Member of the Legislative Assembly Dr. Shin), and consulted as a team leader for Siemens on a global business impact project in Toronto, Canada. I have also been security cleared with Metro Vancouver CrimeStoppers, as their former Board Director, and the US Department of Defense in the 90s. I am also a former Board Director for these social and non-profit organizations for humanitarian reasons: AIDS Vancouver, Burnaby Hospice Society, American Marketing Association of BC, AMA Toronto, and the BC Borstal Association. I have won 7 awards in the past 4 years for client work. My blockchain working relationships have included Miko Matsumura, Scott Walker, Michael Terpin, and Richard Titus. Amazix is also a partner agency of Bitcoin Suisse. I have sat on the Board’s marketing steering committee of Vancity Savings ($27 billion assets under management) in Canada. Thank you for your important question and opinion and it is well noted.

As for the pricing, we have 2 university PhDs, (Faculty and Research - Faculty List - Kenneth Wong); (https://smith.queensu.ca/faculty_and_research/faculty_list/CVs/Kenneth-Wong-CV.pdf), and (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffreyrgreenberg/) that would be and professors along with 4 senior strategy consultants and marketing agency executives/partners assigned to deliver market and global strategy for the Maker Dao Team. This team of very senior agency and academic advisors does not come inexpensively. The price is well under a McKinsey/Bain/Tata engagement and designed to be priced under a Top-Tier global McKinsey engagement.

There is a typo in the engagement duration of the proposal submission, and for that I apologize on behalf of my teammates who rushed to put this submission into the DAO. It should not be 1 month, it is expected to take approximately 4-6 months. This will be corrected in the proposal submission.

If the DAO feels the cost is an issue (not within the realm of your annual marketing budget), there may be a way to reduce the cost by reducing the number of professors and high level strategy/ad agency executives on the team, to a budget or price point that meets with the DAO’s budget. For example, we can halve the # of Phds and executive consultants to deliver a tighter engagement, shorten the duration based on an smaller scope of work for strategy to deliver that at $250k for a 3-4 month strategic marketing engagement component. Let me know if this helps.

As for capacity, we employ over 60 staff, contractors and partners and have a strong network of additional resources that can be augmented, depending on the scope of new projects. In 2017 after our first year, we managed over 100 community management project clients concurrently with revenues of USD 17 million in billings by our second year. Since the last ‘blockhain winter’ we scaled back, but are able to grow again quickly based on our experience. We are likely the largest blockchain agency worldwide, and so if you have a concern about capacity, I do not think any other blockchain-focused agency, worldwide, apart from traditional global ad/marketing agencies and networks may be able to fulfill heavy demands based on your implications of capacity. In that respect, a clear identification of scope of work is required before Amazix would consider taking on this project.

Finally, your comment " figured out strategy beforehand and offer to the governance" is not a condoned business practice in strategy consulting because strategic development and management is not ‘cookie-cutter.’ As a former member of the Canadian Strategic Management Consultants society (https://www.cmc-canada.ca/) , this practice is considered unethical because no new work/analysis is created (copying a strategy is not really strategy, but an implementation of a case study that may or may not work). Strategy is unique to a firm and must be developed, along with frameworks for a client for a specific period in time and situational context.

I earned an MBA in Strategy Consulting, Global Management, and Innovation (triple major) at Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto; and a Certificate in Managing Complex Product Development from M.I.T./Sloan. And, a B.Commerce and Business Administration in Marketing from UBC.

Strategy is a in depth process that takes extensive (months) of research, analysis, planning, modelling, testing, validation, risk management and scenario analysis for a specific engagement time period, and cannot be performed as pre-work for any prospective client. Not only is it impossible, it is unethical. No professional consulting firm like Bain, McKinsey, Tata, Deloitte, EY, BCG, operates this way. But I do appreciate that some members of this forum may want this work for free. Alas, we do not provide work on ‘speculation’. A McKinsey, Bain engagement typically starts at $1 to $2 million as an entry-point. (at least this is what my friends/colleagues tell me… they are Partners at Bain & Co. (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jon-mckeown-b8b9581/), and McKinsey & Co (https://www.linkedin.com/in/sean-buckley-cfa-a43890/) and my former MBA colleagues who is a an Assistant Professor at Kellogg School of Management (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jillian-darroch-chown-a68857/)

Last as a leadership style, I believe in collaborative, inspiration leadership, and leading by example. And that is how the Amazix team is designed to operate. For me, it is a focus on getting measurable results, with a focus on SMART goals and marketing operational efficiency (like return on marketing investment ROMI, or return on objectives (ROO)).

I hope I have answered your concerns and welcome the opportunity to answer additional questions related to the performance of getting the marketing work done at Maker Dao.

I have reviewed the post comments on What are our priorities? And how can we stay focused on things that matter the most? - and see merit on both sides: the need for a clear vision and objectives, and your desire for expediency, cost-containment, and a clear action plan without re-rigging strategy, vision and mission in a marketing working group. There is probably a solution that can address both viewpoints and we are here to help.


MakerDao: Benefits of DAI and why is Dai better than its competitors.

To answer this question, we must do a thorough competitive analysis of Maker Dao and its competitors with respect to a stablecoin’s performance (product), positioning, and key advantages. Answering this question actually gets into the deliverables of the engagement and scope of work and therefore a full analysis is not provided here. What I will provide is a summary of some initial findings that are intended to provoke discussion within the Dao community and Maker’s marketing efforts.

A qualitative analysis of major stablecoins was conducted and published by Wes Levitt, Head of Strategy at Theta Labs on Medium (January 4, 2019). The stablecoins studied included: USDCoin (USDC), Gemini dollar (GUSD), Paxos Standard Token (PAX), TrueUSD (TUSD), Tether (USDT), and Dai (DAI).

At the time of the analysis, USDT controlled 96% of the average trading volume while all others were 0% to 2% (PAX). Core functionality - stablecoins: Performance metrics included 1) deviation from the $1.00 peg (winners were USDT, PAX, and TUSD, while GUSD and DAI underperformed. Metric #2: Downside deviation from $1.00 peg (winners were PAX, USDC, and TUSD, while DAI, USDT, AND GUSD underperformed. Metric #3: Volatility of price changes (winners were PAX, USDT, TUSD, USDC) while GUSD underperformed. DAI was not mentioned. Metric #4: Market correlation in a downturn (winners were PAX, TUSD, USDC) while DAI, GUSD, and USDT underperformed. In this quantitative analysis, USDC, T|USD and PAX all performed “reasonably well” and

DAI got credit for being by far the most successful crypto-collateralized stablecoin to date and for maintaining its value with ETH collateral despite the ETH’s 90% drop in price since DAI launched in 2017.

On May 30, Joel Koh conducted another analysis between USDT, USDC, BUSD and DAI.
Average APY from lending were #1 (USDT, 9.7%, 61.8 billion market cap); #2 (USDC, 9.5%, 22.2 billion market cap); #3 (BUSD, 8.7%, 8.7 billion market cap) and #4 (DAI, 8.4% 4.7 billion market cap).

Communicating DAI’s market capitalization of US 4.7 billion and US 432 million daily trading volume and 4.7 billion DAI in circulation demonstrates to audiences and traders, the size, scale, and liquidity DAI provides, and that it is a serious contender for a Tier-1 stablecoin solution.

It may be strategically important to position DAI out of the pack of competitors and either with or away from USDT to capture top of mind awareness and be within the ‘consideration set’ of stable coin users and traders. DAI can be promoted to crypto investors by allows users to store its value without abandoning the crypto space because it is backed by crypto assets. Since it is not backed by the US Dollar, when there is now rising inflation and a weakening of the dollar, DAI will be immune to this negative volatility.

Of course price stability, minimizing variance away from the peg is critically important in the function of the stable coin. However, users, consumers, and traders also may have other reasons for selecting a stablecoin including brand trust, brand affinity (loyalty), a trial of a stablecoin, variety seeking and hedging, etc. and we must systematically analyze, a/b/N test and optimize the messaging and marketing mix to maximize marketing performance and differentiated positioning to deliver a compelling and enduring competitive advantage for DAI.

Dai should minimize the negative impact of Levitt’s qualitative analysis, or DAI should try to algorithmically improve its performance over time on these published measures, and systematically find other key measures where DAI outperforms its competitors and publish and communicate its key advantages, particularly as the only serious player backed by cryptocurrency-assets. Amazix would be pleased to assist in this feature-for-feature competitive research and analysis if selected to undertake this engagement.

Finally, Maker should promote that the DAI is a DAO-controlled organization promoting decentralization and autonomy vis-a-vis its centralized competitors. There is greater transparency and control to users/traders and risks associated with centralized governance.

Once this happens, Amazix is in a strong position to effectively communicate these advantages to users, traders, investors, and the general blockchain public.


We’d like to hear what the Maker DAO / DAI community feels is the marketing priority, goal and objectives for marketing and communications. And, what issues and challenges you feel you are facing?

Jenn, I’d love to hear from you and the community what you feel are your priorities and the situational context to see if an in-house agency vs external team is better. What are your thoughts so far?

Jenn, it is also possible to have a hybrid system to try to capture the benefits of both an inhouse-team and external agency where core core team competencies (and advantages) are captured while hiring an experienced external agency resources complement the core team. This is often done, and the strategy developed is a collaborative effort with the agency team, but owned by the client. This obviously can reduce the costs and bring in sought-after talent and skills and offer greater flexibility/capacity when and where needed. In this case, an in our example, we’d help you pick and choose which components from our proposal is desired, needed (essential) and in that way help you bring down costs. There would be a transfer of skills and expertise to your inhouse team that is leverageable for the long term.

1 Like

Okay, I’m gonna weigh in here and be a little less polite than Doo_Nam and say it as it is: This proposal is extremely low quality. I’m just repeatedly hit by a wall of text in each post with large amounts of empty buzzwords, name dropping and appeal to authority.

When asked how you’d balance us vs your other clients, this type of non-answer earns only skepticism.

I also find your response to your past failed project (Safechain) very problematic. You were the CEO and despite all the wonderful credentials you have, you are completely blameless and an incompetent founder is responsible for that catastrophe? Okay then…

And as for pricing, some of your team’s posts such as the one here still says 1 month, not 4-6 months. Being detail oriented apparently isn’t too important when asking for $850k. What takes the cake is the post that’s now been edited 39 times (and counting). First you tell us that the pricing makes sense.

As for the pricing, we have 2 university PhDs… and professors along with 4 senior strategy consultants and marketing agency executives/partners assigned to deliver market and global strategy for the Maker Dao Team. This team of very senior agency and academic advisors does not come inexpensively.

Then you edit and claim it is a typo in the duration to make the per-month cost lower but the total cost and work done is the same. So, same work but just done more slowly?

Honestly, there’s so many problems here that it’s hard to know where to even begin. As far as I’m concerned, this thread has convinced me that Amazix is not who want marketing for us.


Why would you make an assumption the work is the same? It was stated we would reduce the # of consultants and the scope of work would be reduced accordingly because of your budget constraints. The range to be provided with Mitchell, is $250k-500k depending on the # of consultants and scope of work. It will be modified soon in the proposal.

This will be the last time I address S4FEChain because it is an ongoing project and subject to confidentiality. “, you are completely blameless and an incompetent founder is responsible for that catastrophe” - I cannot comment about the inner workings of this organization, nor that the project is a catrastophe. I have resigned and sit only as an Advisor to the founder. If the founder listens to me and takes my advice he can, and if he does not take my advice he doesn’t have to. I took on the role to help this young gentleman out for 3 months. My other credentials speak for themselves. If my experience is being attacked then I will defend my experience, simply by stating facts and to provide evidence and client testimonials that demonstrate otherwise. That is all.

In any event, I am not the only person on the team. What is missing is your analysis of the rest of the Amazix team who would consider working on the project. They are also well-qualified professionals.

Third-party quantitative analysis showed DAI underperformed in all categories of a stablecoin compared to USDT and at least 4 other major competitors. I would argue calling DAI a ‘catastrophe’ is by analogy relative to USDT is ‘not helpful.’ because that does not find a solution to your issues/challenges… which is DAI has in its 4 year history, still has only 0.0285% share of market trading volume ($190 MM as at today/last 24 hours) for a stable coin compared to USDT’s 96% trading volume ($666 Billion) as of today. This is very far from MKR/DAI’s current marketing material’s statement and vision to “dominate” the market, say, in the eyes of a major shareholder like Andreessen Horowitz. This obvious failure is not a “catastrophy” but what is needed is a real solution and a discussion on that. You need to inspire your community, users/traders to want to join you, not be alienated by you. You don’t want Andreesen Horowitz dumping your stablecoin because Maker alienates its community (or perhaps you do if you’re an implant or agent from Tether or Binance, are you?) :slight_smile:

From personal example, take this for what you will,… with limited knowledge on Stablecoins, I trust the biggest names and statistically, and rigously, by closeness to the peg. For that I always use USDT because that is what the majority use and what rigorous analytic qualitative evaluation has shown. I am a DAI holder as well. Without getting into my ‘personal’ reasons, I do suggest you survey the market and understand, statistically speaking (99% confidence +/- 5% error at a minimum) what the blockchain community thinks about DAI and why they choose or choose not to use your stablecoin, as a start. That is objective, unbiased sentiment that would help you in guiding your governance decisions. Power lays in the hands of the majority, not the few in a community-based/decentralized organization.

Last, it is not automatic that Amazix would, if offered, work for MakerDao. Amazix undertakes a thorough due diligence process (either DD or EDD on the major shareholders, partners of an organization before any engagement, including PEP Sanctions, AML, terrorist financing and criminal records in our global database) and our bylaws require a consultation with our Partners on whether we accept the offer and engagement. There may be reasons where we do not, and I cannot comment what those reasons are, at this time. I hope you understand.

1 Like

AmaZix submitted a MIP (Maker Improvement Proposal).
It begins with “The purpose of this MIP is to propose AmaZix as a global strategic marketing partner for MakerDAO…” and is authored by a representative of AmaZix.
I’m a bit surprised to hear that AmaZix is not necessarily willing to accept its own proposal.


We cannot ‘accept our own proposal’ as there is a counterparty (MakerDao) - we can only accept a valid or bona-fide offer from MakerDao, not from ourselves. Second, this is a discovery phase of a potential engagement. We are cognizant of proposal changes and adjustments as in the final price and duration of marketing components… And we have some flexibility to accommodate. This requires an adjustment in the proposal and concommitant offer reflecting the same. However, if we learn of factors that prohibit us from working with Maker, through the forum, forum discussions with your team, or through DD or EDD, for example (conflicts of interest, risk assessment, contract language, regulatory compliance (e.g., PEP sanctions, or illegal activity like money-laundering or financial crimes with a major DAI shareholder/beneficial owner, partner or customer), then there is a possibility we cannot engage with Maker. There are other factors. This is standard practice of discovery.

I’ll be introducing 2 team members to this discussion shortly, Shetil Rastogi, Senior Director of Client Services, Strategy and Research, based in Toronto, Canada; and Jeffrey Greenberg, Practice Leader, and Adjunct Professor, based near Los Angeles, CA. They can also elaborate.


Sounds like you should perhaps check those things out before submitting a proposal. Or were you expecting to be paid while you do the discovery phase to figure out whether your own policies allow you could work with Maker?

Just a heads up, but a DAO is not a legal entity and cannot sign contracts. It’s pretty much an understanding between a contractor and the DAO with periodic budget prepayment every quarter or so. But work product and payment are pretty much the only leverage each party has over the other.

Just want to make sure that’s not a deal-breaker for you before investing a lot of time.

1 Like

We cannot check these things out beforehand. Information must be provided by MakerDao to Amazix to do a DD and EDD check and authorization must be provided by MakerDao to conduct these checks. We do not expect to be paid during discovery.

Yes we understand this. We have our senior partners and legal team working on this already. It’s ambiguous and a new legal innovation that there is no counter-party to a smart contract/contract.

If MakerDao is headquartered in San Francisco, then California law may override and have jurisdiction as to the formation of a legally binding contract even if there is no official counterparty. Otherwise, our HQ is Hong Kong. I am not a lawyer and will let the lawyers advise.

It’s not a waste of time to join this forum and chat/perform discovery, MakerDao is an interesting project.

One question, who owns the rights to the marketing/creative/strategy work created? the DAO? a San Francisco legal entity? or nobody?

1 Like

re: rights ownership, I think a natural home for those would be the Dai Foundation, purely in their capacity as a neutral steward of Dai and Maker-related IP. Someone from the Dai Foundation may want to chime in just to say if that is in fact possible.

1 Like

I understood that the foundation would be dissolved? in 1.5 years time? but for now its ok?