MIP40c3-SP9: Modify Core Unit Budget, CPM-001

It’s a little late for feedback, for which I apologize. Could you confirm how this moonshot fund should be handled in the same way as the budget implementation? Additions strictly for clarity are acceptable subsequent to the frozen period starting.

What is the starting date? This is unclear from the proposal. (It will obviously be dependent on this proposal passing.)

From an operational standpoint I need to know when and where you are expecting each transfer of funds. This means:

  • Multi-sig / Wallet address.
  • Date
  • Amount

For at least the first payment, and ideally for all payments.


Hi, @LongForWisdom

The moonshot fund should only be handled when such an opportunity arises. I included in the budget proposal to ensure that we can act on an offer swiftly when an opportunity comes. Such an offer is usually confidential, and, likely, we wouldn’t be able to share details with the community.

I understand the community values transparency. The thinking behind this is our ability to grab an opportunity when presented to us instead of writing out a budget-modifying proposal that requires details that we want to, but can’t share.

Do you have any suggestions on how we can approach this issue? Would you say utilizing Manual Budget Implementations suitable in this case?

Separately, as for the starting date, we want to officially start on June 1st.
Budget Implementation: Simple
Wallet address: 0x21401CCa9b3E237E6c5De9cD227CEC690d566A60
Date: The first day of every month from June
Amount: 397,064 DAI

Couple of things here:

The only way you’re going to have instant access to those funds is if they are in a multi-sig that you guys control. Any other mechanism is going to have a delay and need to pass one or more governance votes. I’m not sure how easy it will be to sell that to the community though.

Personally I’d recommend putting any such request up to an on-chain poll in the weekly governance cycle.

Because funds are currently distributed via executive vote, we can’t guarantee timing to this extent. The current setup is for monthly budget payouts to be included in the first weekly executive vote of the month. In practice this means the payment could arrive any-time in the first two weeks of the month (depending on how the executive lines up on the calendar, how quickly it is passed by governance and what the GSM pause delay is set to.

As an example for June. The executive would go up on June 4th and would presumably pass and be executed sometime before June 11th.


Transparency and MKR making the calls are indeed core values of MakerDAO in my view. You are asking to be able to spend more than 10% of the annual expenses of MakerDAO (15% of the Surplus Buffer) without wanting to discuss with governance because it’s “confidential”?


Is there an example of how this 5,000,000 DAI moonshot fund would ideally be deployed?

Perhaps provide a hypothetical example on what it would be used for, why, how you would after the fact measure the success of it, and what kind of reporting would occur to the DAO (even if the DAO was not privy to the specifics of the deal prior to deployment of funds)

Edited to add:
Could you walk us through what a typical work week looks like in this CU? I’m still trying to understand exactly what services are being provided and how they improve profits or expand the reach of DAI.

I know there’s been a lot of questions, but your proposal is asking for millions more DAI than absolutely critical, notoriously expensive units to operate like Protocol Engineering.


Few questions on this budget:

  1. I’m struggling to understand why such a high % of our revenue should be spent on marketing activities at this stage of MakerDAO’s growth. The % may be reasonable for a traditional company, but MakerDAO does not fit in that peer group. I suspect marketing budgets for most crypto platforms are much lower than what’s stated here. How are we evaluating the impact of our direct marketing spend and identifying what works and what doesn’t work?

  2. Why are our Admin and Legal expenses so high? Either other Core Units are underestimating these costs or your proposal has too large of a budget. The admin and legal expenses are more than every other Core Unit combined. Would appreciate more detail here.

  3. As requested by others, could you please provide an example of a moonshot opportunity that we took advantage of in the past or what one would look like? I don’t think it’s in Governance’s best interest to have no transparency for such a large amount of DAI. Any single marketing campaign that costs greater than 1M DAI should be approved by Governance, IMO.


As a bit of comparison, this proposal is for 3.5 million DAI more than Protocol Engineering. Just to lay out for everyone why some of us are asking so many questions. It is by >50% the largest budget proposal for a CU’s first year


I would like to see the voting of this CU as a standalone proposal and not bundled with other things


“A product at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by a marketing force.” —Ben Butler

In all fairness 10% of a company’s annual revenues should go to marketing. Anything below 10% is shooting yourself in the foot. If you want growth, you have to prioritize your marketing communications efforts into the budget, I think we can All agree.

However, we do need a success measuring technique. And @Kathleen I will be the first community member to defend your Team and that 10% of revenues is needed for your Core Unit budget—but the lack of clarification of how the 5M DAI for Moonshot is not being disclosed properly to the community and that unfortunately has some folks here concerned.

Let’s not forget @PaperImperium that this core unit expands beyond the US of A. It’s global(pretty sure you know that).

One thing I do remember is the appearance by Rune on Bloomberg Asia. I highly doubt any of us community members would have made that happen. So, let’s not forget the accomplishments this Core Unit has made.


I don’t know what those are. Please humor those of us who are newer. A portfolio of clippings and other earned media would be wonderful.

I would also like further clarification if this is marketing towards new vault users, partners to integrate us, or merchants and institutions to accept DAI? If any of those, how is this different from what the Growth CU is doing? If it’s something else, what is the marketing’s goal?


It will have it’s own Inclusion poll as part of the monthly governance cycle. The poll will go up on Monday, and last until Thursday.

To be clear, this proposal probably will be bundled with the other CPM Core Unit proposals, but it will be separate from everything else at the Inclusion Poll stage.


I meant for both instances


Sorry, both instances of what? We don’t really have the luxury of having separate executives for each proposal, there just isn’t enough time for voters to coordinate reliably if we try to do more than 1 in a week.

MIP51 addresses this in a way by no longer requiring executives to pass MIPs, however it has no passed yet, it is also been submitted for the May governance cycle.

I have not said each proposal…, just this one, I expressed what it would be ideal in my mind since this is kinda a “special situation” , then should have a “special situation vote”.

1 Like



In what way is this a special situation?

I’m pretty hesitant to start applying different rules to certain votes / proposals unless there is an ironclad justification for why it’s necessary.

1 Like

I’m not sure I agree there should be different rules for this proposal, but asking for 5,000,000 DAI in unrestricted funds that we may not even be told exactly how it was spent seems like a special situation.

This is a very large budget request in general and given that the marketing communication CU hasn’t clearly communicated what the DAO gets for this budget should allow it to get lots of scrutiny.

I also wouldn’t want all other business to get torpedoed for an entire executive cycle. I’m sure Gov doesn’t want everybody to feel like it’s fork over almost 10 million DAI without strings attached or else no other CUs get onboarded/business accomplished.

Surely there’s a process for this that’s not just reliant upon a poll that may not see much participation? (I don’t actually know — you tell me!)


The poll is the process. You’re asking me if there is a way for this to be voted down without affecting other proposals, there is, and it is the inclusion poll. The entire purpose of that poll within the monthly cycle is to prevent situations such as the one you’re describing (where an unpopular proposal prevents more popular stuff from passing.)

If you don’t feel like the poll is getting, or will get enough participation, or you feel that it’s outcome is leaning in a direction you disagree with, then start campaigning and trying to convince voters to participate and vote against the proposal.


I’m not sure yet I’m at that point, but is the forum an appropriate place to do that? Or should concerns be confined to this thread and chat?

I mean, don’t spam it in every thread or anything, but if you want to highlight it in a separate thread, that’s reasonable.