MIP41c4-SP27: Facilitator Onboarding (RWF-001)

MIP41c4-SP27: Facilitator Onboarding (RWF-001)


MIP41c4-SP#: 27
Author(s): Rune Christensen
Tags: personnel-xboarding
Status: Formal Submission
Date Applied: <2021-10-30>
Date Ratified:
Forum URL: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip41c4-spx-facilitator-onboarding-rwf-001/11308

Sentence Summary

MIP41c4-SP27 onboards Will Remor as RWF-001 Facilitator.

Paragraph Summary

MIP41c4-SP27 onboards Will Remor as RWF-001 Facilitator. Will Remor is a longstanding contributor to RWA work and research in MakerDAO.



As MakerDAO enters a new phase were rapid scalability of the RWA pipelines that have been built up over the past year becomes possible, I believe it is crucial that the RWA Core Unit is improved and decentralized into multiple Core Units, and I believe as the oldest RWA contributor in the MakerDAO ecosystem Will Remor is the right person to take the role of Acting Facilitator and oversee the decentralization process.

Core Unit ID


Facilitator Name and Information

  • Name: William Remor
  • Discord: @will.remor#4365
  • ETH Address: 0x44d2509074993b858c54B6d276ebD3816FC93A68

Facilitator Commitment

I approached Will Remor and asked if he was willing to take on the role of Acting Facilitator to oversee the decentralization of the RWA Core Units.

Will has decades of experience doing financial and credit transaction, and is the oldest contributor doing work related to RWA in the MakerDAO ecosystem, originally doing research under the Core Community Development umbrella.

The objective will be to work with various stakeholders in the Maker RWA ecosystem to develop a solid and scalable framework for RWA onboarding and then execute within this framework while decentralizing the RWA Core Units by splitting the current RWF-001 Core Unit into multiple redundant RWA Core Units that can operate in parallel.

The framework will based on things such as the Arranger Model, the results of Luca Prosperi’s decentralized RWA research project and the input of MKR holders.

1 Like

We would need to hear from @williamr that this is something he is interested in before taking it as a submission into the monthly cycle.

Traditionally, these onboarding proposals are written by the individual in question. So @williamr if there was something you wanted to add, now would be a good time to get in touch with the author.


When I was approached to step into the role of facilitator, my first tought was: this team has achieved a lot in the past 12 months but we still have a lot of work to do. I know the people in this team to be highly qualified professionals with the right experiences to take Maker to the next level in its RWA journey.

These are my key guiding thoughts:

(1) How can those achievements be built upon while maintaining trust internally at the DAO and with the wider group of stakeholders?

(2) How can all the foundational work be possibly improved, with an eye for fulfilling the original vision of distributed and nimble risk teams?

(3) How can a facilitator be a part of that improvement process and vision implementation?

My natural conclusion was that the facilitator role for RWA could only be performed if it was in an “interim” capacity. This means the “interim facilitator” is there in a consultative capacity to work alongside the stakeholders to oversee the transition of multiple RWF functions towards a decentralised state with multiple risk teams.

SES has proved that such transitions can be done successfully with tech-focused teams. I believe that with the right frameworks, mindset and experienced professionals this can be done with RWA teams as well.

1 Like

The above statement is suggesting to me that you don’t see this as a long term position. I would consider at least for the first RWF CU to want to have a strong lead that sees significant growth potential and to have a plan to stay for a while or until certain goals are achieved. The idea we cycle through people in lead positions has risks and hazards…

Do you see yourself only taking this position for a short time?

One aspect no-one has even remotely talked about yet is the idea that Maker CU units (with significant expertise and experience) themselves could become independent businesses with multiple arms (or redundancies if you will) so that they could expand to more people, work across the industry using the people, talent and legal IP to assist others to bring on RWF driving additional revenue streams (this allows CUs to diversify revenues). This has some hazards and like everything has pros and cons but a possible real path towards decentralization of CU services.

1 Like

Great questions for clarification. In this context, “interim” means a transitory role to ensure the transition from the current verticalised setup of RWA to a decentralised state of its various functions. It is best seen as a way to “incubate” the functions performed by RWA into more efficient and narrowly defined functions/teams, with the intent to allow the scale that is necessary for the next stage of evolution. I’ve been involved in both a community member and contributor capacity for Maker Risk teams since June 2019. My commitment to the DAO is not temporary.


Does MIP41c5-SP2: Facilitator Offboarding (RWF-001) need to pass for this proposal to pass? Suppose the attempt to offboard @SebVentures fails and the proposal to onboard @williamr succeeds? Will we have two RWA Core Units?


I would assume this would just add a second facilitator in that case. Lots of CUs have more than one.


In that case we would have two Facilitators in RWF-001. It would be more problematic the other way around, i.e., if this subproposal fails but Seb’s doesn’t; in that case we’d have to resort to the fallback decision process.

(Note that we’re overloading “interim” here.)


I do have a quick question for @williamr :

Will you continue to work at Aave in their risk unit while being acting facilitator (for us) and RWA expert (for them)? Given their positioning as a competitor in the RWA space, I don’t really think someone should sit in both camps doing the same job.

The Aave position is under @monet-supply (one of our delegates) who also works at Aave. They pay substantially better than Maker ($100-$250/hr) and I do not fault either @monet-supply or @williamr for taking on paid work there.

But it seems a clear conflict of interest that I have not seen either of these disclosed anywhere, despite the measure passing a month ago.


@PaperImperium Thanks for your question. This is an important comment which requires context. The application submission for the aave project was done a few months ago, long before any onboarding discussion. The application was performed under the umbrella of my risk analytics company for a very limited part-time engagement. To date my company has not been formally onboarded and completed any work for aave. This is why no disclosure has been made. My disclosures are captured at disclosures and updated as required.


Thanks for the background.

If onboarded at Aave and onboarded as RWF (acting or permanent) facilitator, would you work at both? Presumably you could find the money in the RWF CU budget to pay for your full time work at Maker without being at Aave simultaneously.


Moving this proposal to formal submission