MIP40c3-SP49: Modify Core Unit Budget (MKT-001)

MIP40c3-SP49: Modify Core Unit Budget (MKT-001)


MIP40c3-SP#: 49
Author(s): Deimos
Tags: core-unit, cu-mkt-001, budget, dai-budget
Status: Formal Submission
Date Applied: 2021-12-08
Date Ratified:

Sentence Summary

MIP40c3-SP49 removes all and any active budgets for the Content Production Core Unit—Dai or MKR.



This Core Unit has been a money pit. More can be read here: MIP41c5-SP3: Facilitator Offboarding (MKT-001).

Core Unit ID


Budget Implementation

On this proposal’s approval:

  • No more Dai will be transferred for the use of this Core Unit, either through streaming or through direct payments.
  • No more MKR will vest. Unvested MKR will be forfeited.

Golden Parachute

During the RFC phase, the Community can propose any type of one-time compensation to be included with this subproposal.


Unfortunately, there’s nothing we as a community can do about troll accounts other than delete inappropriate posts because anyone can simply make a new account and keep posting.

We would like to make it clear to delegates and everyone else that this effectively puts us two months behind on hiring due to the lack of clarity around our budget. This is not productive for our team or the DAO.

Without boundaries, there’s nothing stopping anonymous accounts from effectively DDOS’ing the DAO. One solution would be to distinguish between anonymous participants who are productive vs nonproductive and think about which actors should be allowed to submit different types of proposals.


I’ve been thinking about this some time ago (mainly to fight the so-called SourceCred farming) and I couldn’t arrive at a perfect solution without centralizing power and killing criticism. How would you recommend going about this, @seth ?

One concept that I think is important here is focusing on the idea rather than the person posting it. From the Governance side, we do not want to be put in the position of being asked to determine who can legitimately propose governance actions and who cannot. Instead we enforce rules on structure that allow the community to engage and give MKR holders some guidance as to how the community is receiving them.

Offboarding is an inherently tense subject, but I think trying to engage with the content of the proposals is the best way forward to inform the MKR voters. From the governance end, as long as all further requirements are met, this proposal would be eligible for the January governance cycle. This thread is the best place to debate the proposal at hand and ultimately will be linked on the vote copy if this proposal proceeds onchain.


To exclude trolls, when submitting a new idea, some evidence will be required from the proposer, such as:

  • Forum user with trust level 3
  • MKR to be presented when creating a new user account - so you can automatically create a trusted account
  • in the absence of these, a joint submission with a trusted user.

This would exclude trolls but only slightly impede the submission of new ideas.
And the possibility of MKR presentation does not exclude critical MKR owners.

1 Like

How about some kindda “test” (like in high school) to people who wants to apply for SourceCred and wants to submit proposals?

In the test (could be even a google form) can be questions about MakerDAO, DAI, Core Units, etc etc, in order to see if that person is qualified to submit proposals and can give good quality posts and responses and earn from SourceCred.

1 Like

I think your proposal is excellent. I also think it would be pertinent that those who submit MIPs directly do not generate SourceCred so that there is no incentive to troll and monetise.

Isn’t one of the main values around a DAO that anyone, regardless of social status, anonymity, etc, can participate and create a proposal?


Yeah but, could be weird that someone comes without no single knowledge of Maker and create a proposal with no sense (I’m not saying this one is the case), but this could be something we can see in the future, cuz if no even a kid of 10yo can create a proposal here (again I’m not saying this is bad, this kid could be a little genius) but you get my point. Moderation is needed in some cases imo.

Unfortunately, trolling can also be a weapon.

The sense of safety in trolling comes from the lack of consequences. I believe you should be able to defend yourself, you should be able to deal with trolling with consequences!

Regardless of this thread, generally speaking: trolling of the kind of defamation and spreading false information can be very damaging and often the work of a former business partner, an old grievance or even a competitor.

You are right, but it is an irresolvable contradiction between freedom of speech and self-defence. Positive thinking is important, assuming the good about everyone is important too - we agree on that. But you can only do that if you stay alive by defending yourself.

Staying alive is useful if you want to do good things.

Perhaps we can cross that bridge when we get there? Going back to this particular proposal I don´t consider it trolling. I may not agree with the proposal but the fact that i don´t and the particular style is not of my preference does not mean it should not be discused. As per sourcecred it´s one of the instruments with less barriers of entry and we (imo) should emphasize to keep it that way, also as a side comment but not the main goal there isn´t an abundance of talent in defi, rather the opposite and you never know were that talent can come from so you might as well have an open door policy as open as can be in order to attract as many people as possible in the hope that a few (or more who knows) can long term contribute or perhaps even join a CU.

thank u thank u

hopeful u vote yes