MIP41c5-SP2: Facilitator Offboarding (RWF-001)

I would have expected this to come from @SebVentures himeself with a statement as to why he wanted to step down if this was voluntary, but this is only speculation on my part at this point.

Given the difficulty of this position I did offer him such an out over 2 months ago in another thread (mostly as a concern @SebVentures might feel he had to stay on when he might want to pass on the reigns in a very difficult position not for any particular reason or cause). I consider this job at the time (and probably still honestly) to be one of the most difficult in the MakerDAO btw.


Joining with @equivrel comments, this is a surprise to me and if this is not 100% @SebVentures idea and desire then it should be disclosed what is the issue driving this offboarding and from what person/group.

If this is 100% Seb’s idea, I would appreciate hearing from Seb why he wants to leave other than the “maybe a little reprieve from Maker would be good” comment and I want to hear it so those of us who want to see RWA to complete success know if there is a broken gear in the machinery so to speak, if there is one that is causing him to leave, so we don’t run into the same wall.


Thanks @SebVentures !

I don’t know what will happen (and as other said, neither why?, exactly) but, for what I could see (i.e., community+chat+forum activity) you have been GREAT value for MakerDAO.

Personally, you are among the people who made this project exciting in the last year or so. I hope (and I am pretty sure) you’ll stick around and keep pushing the DAO further!


As @LongForWisdom asked if I’m want to leave (in which case there is no poll), I want to clarify some points as it might sound too subtle.

So the ELI5:

  • I did not decide to leave
  • I understand @rune don’t trust me as a facilitator
  • @rune want me out and I understood that he will do whatever it takes to get me out
  • But I’m working for MKR holders so I want MKR holders to make the call. It’s their DAO.
  • It seems @rune is quite in control of MakerDAO lately
  • I don’t want to have a drama that would, in fine, be detrimental to MakerDAO
  • Based on those data points, I think it makes sense to use an optimistic rollup mechanism (let’s act like it will pass, and revert if not). It’s a first one, so unsure what’s best.

As a note on process with the proposal. There are two ways facilitator offboarding can go.

Facilitator is leaving voluntarily

  • This happened a few times with people that were working in the Foundation.
  • We don’t vote on these, because the person involved has already made the decision to leave (and you can’t force someone to stay via vote.)
  • The expectation here is that the author is the facilitator in question (or a member of GovAlpha doing it after they’ve left.)

Facilitator is not leaving voluntarily

  • This hasn’t happened so far.
  • This requires a vote.
  • The expectation here is that the author is not the facilitator in question.
  • There is some expectation that some evidence or reasoning is provided to explain why it is desirable to remove the facilitator in question.

This particular proposal blurs these lines somewhat, hence the community’s questions. So far it has not been clear given what has been posted on this thread whether this is voluntary or not. In order to proceed correctly, we need some clarity from the parties involved.

This will be voted on (assuming it is formally submitted) based on @SebVentures comments above.


Hello MakerDao.

I’m Ashleigh, I used to work very closely with Rune, Greg, Equivrel, and many of the parties involved in the current debate. I was one of the earliest non technical employees of Makerdao and was responsible for overseeing the adoption of single collateral Dai.

I am re-entering the chat because I see an alarming pattern emerging.

To explain the nature of the alarm, you’ll need some context. In the early days of Maker, the idea was that we could create an alternative system that was governed by different rules than the financial system we all grew up in: more decentralized, more free, more malleable, more honest.

We all believed in this vision. Rune was the spearhead, but he had a lot of help. His ideas were put into code by some of the most brilliant minds building in the smart contract space at the time, namely Dapphub. The understanding was that it was a flat hierarchy–that we were out to build something that wouldn’t be controlled by any one entity, that would be stateless. The project had kind of a renegade culture.

In 2018, something changed. Rune began to feel that he needed to take control of the project.

A little more backstory: This wasn’t unfamiliar to anyone involved in the project at this point. In the previous couple of years, there had been lots of ups and downs. At one point in 2016-2017 , Rune actually disappeared from the project for 6+ months with no word. When he came back, he came back with a “vision”, demanding more MKR as payment for his role in rejoining the project he had started.

I won’t go into the details of that particular situation now because they aren’t relevant here, but suffice to say, a pattern has emerged.

In 2018, Rune began to feel that the weight of regulation was weighing on MakerDao heavily and he began to fear massive retribution from sovereign global governments. As such, he began to make some changes. He hired expensive lawyers and got the Dao to agree to put the Dev Fund into a Cayman foundation. This was for our protection, he said. He set up a dummy board made up of OG Maker devs and contributors (plus a few more recent hires of his own) and we moved the funds to the entity. His aim was to create a Holding Company which would be centralized and run all of Maker’s development interests and side businesses. His goal was to start earning revenue via these side businesses. He was never very clear on how the dev funds would be spent or how reporting would work to MKR holders. He made a big speech where he said that you could either take the red pill and be against him, or take the blue pill and go with the flow of progress. Several of us protested, but things moved ahead.

A few months later, several people at Maker (myself and several of the board members and dapphub) realized the extent of what had happened and sought a compromise. We had a group chat that was jokingly titled “Purple Pill”, our goal being to create a compromise between Rune’s red pill and his blue pill. Our thinking was that the current state of MakerDao wasn’t what we had signed up for, but in a DAO there should be room for different ways of approaching a problem. We proposed that Rune keep on with his Holding Company, but that a certain piece of the Dev Fund be carved out that would be controlled by governance and be able to fund different teams who wanted to work on Maker but who weren’t a part of the Holding Company. We finished our presentation on Tuesday or Wednesday in mid march 2019. I scheduled a meeting with Rune for the following Monday, and his assistant sent me a calendar item. Thursday, someone in the planning chat for this meeting told him the nature of the chat, and by Friday half of the board (who were all long term, deeply caring, deeply invested individuals in this project) had been fired. Rune had created a board wherein he had unilateral firing control over all of the board, unbeknownst to the people who sat on that board.

Weird, right?

A few weeks later, I was also fired. There was massive turmoil at the project at this point and everyone was left feeling pretty discouraged.

In the years since, Rune has taken a step back. In that time, a new MakerDao bureaucracy has emerged. Rich and Amy Jung helped shepherd MakerDao into the future, moving the Dev Fund under the control of governance (to the immense satisfaction of the “purple-pillers”). Most of the foundation has moved on. Some people have even told me how they selflessly worked without pay for months as the project transitioned from a company with entities that could issue paychecks to a foundation controlled by governance.

I was so proud when I saw that MakerDao had finally reached the final form we imagined for it.

Now, everything is back to square 1.

Rune is back to his old tricks.

In this case he is trying to fire someone (via governance, which is so machiavellian that I would need an entire new post to comment fully), who has, by all accounts, done a great job. Multiple sources who have been deeply involved in Maker governance over the last few years have said that Seb is doing a great job. Rune has also said in various conversations which have been relayed to me that he wants Seb gone for any of the following reasons (of course edited depending who he is talking to): 1) Rune doesn’t trust Seb 2) Seb is not proficient in risk assessment 3) Seb does not care about “clean assets” vs. other types of Real World Assets (RWA). I have a suspicion that it has something to do with the company owned by Greg and Joe which I believe Rune is an investor in. They have previously tried to insist on middle man payments to their entity in exchange for being listed as a RWA on makerdao, but I will relegate this to a side note now***(below).

Rune has delegated 47,000 MKR to various parties, all of whom he has a close relationship with and who are, presumably, taking orders. I deduce that he has a close relationship with them because he literally told me about some of these people when we had a friendly catch up chat to clear the air a couple weeks ago and he mentioned several of the delegates by name (e.g. planetx) .

Rune has been away for a long period, and in that time he has decided that we are at war again. This time, the battle is partially about regulators and partially about the future of the planet. Rune thinks the two things are related. He thinks we are in a climate crisis (no argument there), but he also thinks that the future of crypto is somehow dependent on our being a part of the fight for the climate, and if we can do that, we will somehow be in the good graces of governments and regulators the world over.

I actually think Rune is right in many respects. Crypto has the potential to fund global, regional and local climate initiatives at a scale that could never be accomplished by the traditional financial industry. Its investors are risk takers, free thinkers, anti-establishment weirdos who have the potential to save the world. If we can live up to his vision and take this mission under our mantle, it would be a beautiful thing to behold and also be a singular victory both for the planet and for those of us who want the planet to be governed by non-state financial regimes.

That said, his approach is, as usual, one of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Rune has the benefit of coming back to a much more nimble MakerDao. Given that he is the founder, he would have a lot of natural support behind him. He could have come in with his Clean proposal and created a whole new governance segment which creates new teams who are experts in the type of green energy funding he is proposing, that have experience pricing the type of risk he is assuring everyone should be the cornerstone of Maker collateral, thereby adding something new to the future of the protocol, and allowing what has been going well to flourish.

Instead his strategy has been to go to war. I think in his mind that means he MUST take control of the protocol again.

At this point I am not even debating the merits of who should or shouldn’t be in control. What I am debating, and strongly censuring, is the idea that one man should be in control of such a protocol.

Rune was running a travel program for danish people to come to asia and learn languages before he got into crypto and came up with the idea for makerdao. He had the energy to direct people, and Nikolai, another early founder who is rarely spoken about these days, had a lot of the economic ideas. They were lucky enough to meet some developers who made their vision a reality.

And we, as a community, are also lucky. Because Dai is great.

But as we should all know from looking at the dollar, the euro, or the venezuela bolivar, sovereign money is only as good as the people who rule it. Dai is in danger of becoming defacto sovereign money. Not sovereign in the sense of the state, a worse kind of sovereignty: the sovereignty of a dictator.

The problem is that Rune is making a mockery of everything that has been accomplished by token governance over the last 24 months. Great strides have been made, and a fairly competent bureaucracy has been established. We need to abide by these norms in order to continue the future of the protocol. A clear leader won’t always be available, and the ability of the many to govern such a specific function has actually been fantastic to witness and something that all other governable protocols have learned from.

At this point, there are two questions we should be asking ourselves: 1) How do we make sure that we are doing what’s best for the Maker protocol and not just blindly following what Rune wants? And 2) How do we build systems that are more resilient to these types of things in the future?

  1. will take some time. 1) only requires that everyone reads up, and votes accordingly.

Some other questions everyone should be asking themselves:

  1. Is Rune qualified to control this protocol? Does he have a background in pricing risk on volatile real world assets, clean or otherwise? (answer: no)

  2. Why does he prefer to work with Will instead of Seb?

  3. Is there anyone who is benefiting financially from his proposed changes?

My proposal:

  1. Keep the bureaucracy that the foundation has created as is. It isn’t perfect, but in this case the process of reaching a governance of the majority is more important than the question of whether the system is perfect, which is a luxury we will not continue to enjoy as DAI scales. Right now we can afford to make governance mistakes. We should make them until we hone in on the right way to do this.

  2. Request that Rune create a separate campaign for his goals. They can be separate and still just as effective. But his taking control in this manner right now is undermining token governance not just for his own protocol, but for all token governance protocols. It is hard to get people involved in governance. What motive do they have to put their time into it if they know that the distant founder will just come in at some point and obviate the need for all of their prior work by redirecting all resources to his own priorities?

***This is a side note, but it is interesting, Rune has long been in partnership with Greg Diprisco and Joe Quintillian of Distributed Capital. They were both part of a tradfi trading shop that made some money and invested heavily in crypto in the early days. They approached makerdao as a VC, but ended up taking control of several parts of the operations of the company despite having little to no experience running or supporting an innovative technology company. Greg gave himself the title of “Head of Business Development” and proceeded to hire people to develop business on his behalf, despite never having closed a significant deal on his own. Joe never gave himself such lofty titles, preferring to stay in the background. That said, he managed to siphon significant funds from the Maker Dev fund to build Oasis, which he and Greg both own equity in despite the fact that Rune explicitly promised everyone at the project that there would be no equity given out in various entities at the time of Holding Company creation. I would like to note here that they are currently building an ATS which is partially borne out of the creation of maker Developers but for which MKR holders are in no way the beneficial owners. I believe this company was also intended to be a “risk assessor” (read: middle man) for various real world asset platforms that wanted to onboard into the maker ecosystem.

Interestingly, from what I have heard, Greg and Joe were perfectly happy with the state of progress as it related to Real World Assets (RWA) being brought onto the platform until they realized they would not be able to charge a middleman fee. It seems they have now begun to wage war, behind closed doors of course, against any such programs which are not amenable to their management fee. This is conjecture based off of things I have heard and seen, so obviously DYOR.


Could you clarify why do you think that he doesnt trust you? Is it something that everone would not trust you, or something happend between you and Rune personal?

When you have done nothing “wrong” then you should NOT step back and we need to discuss some things out. This decision is not possible without transparency. The majority chose to be transparent in the recent polls. Please prove it, all parties.

This is ridiculous.

1 Like

Uhh… wow… Great times… -_-

Okay, so I guess the best way to respond to this to first “disclose my interests”. Let me be clear, the only way I benefit from this project is that I hold a large amount of MKR. I am not getting paid anything, my only motivation is to try to benefit MKR holders, of which I am one.

I am also considering an investment in a project that could qualify as an “arranger” under the arranger framework I proposed, and obviously, should the arranger framework be adopted and should the investment go through, then in that specific case I would have a conflict of interest and should not participate in governance decisions related to that arranger without it being very clear that I have a specific incentive and potential bias (in general I have no desire to be involved in any kind of day to day governance decisions about specific RWA pipelines or deals, however).

I am considering that investment because I think the company is extremely qualified to source great quality collateral for Maker, and I want to help it get off the ground. Ultimately my MKR holdings are so significant that the main benefit I would get from this would come through the positive impact to Maker, rather than whatever small investment I might end up doing. Of course I would also refrain from doing this if it’s deemed unacceptable to the community to have MKR holders invest in arrangers, but on the contrary I would imagine that many MKR holders would like the opportunity themselves to make investments in the many different arrangers that already exist, and would emerge, if the framework - or a variant of it - is adopted

I believe the best approach is to track who have invested in them so that we can ensure that there is broad representation and not specific segments of the community that benefit disproportionately. In practice this could be done by giving worse risk parameters to arrangers that have owner structures that are similar to other existing arrangers, which is natural since it creates less diversification and potentially more risk.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with the decision to propose the offboarding of Seb, as Ashleigh herself mentioned there’s no reason why Seb being a faciliator should prevent other structures from emerging, so if this was some plot so that I could earn a bit of money from doing a small investment in an arranger, it’s completely illogical that my next move would then be to try to offboard Seb.

And one other thing to make clear, practically all of the MKR I own was from a seed investment of 29000 ETH that funded the project in its first year. I have not made a particularly impressive return on that investment in ETH terms, while I have taken on a crazy amount of financial, legal and personal risk, and worked full time almost 6 years and then also been haunted by this kind of over the top drama and conspiracy theories. At this point, I’m done with spending all my energy on Maker while being shit on when I have other projects to work on and I would much rather spend time with my kids.

But the reality is, Maker governance is not doing so great, there are barely any active MKR holders at all and the Core Units basically have free rein. That’s why I’ve had to step in and be active again, because as it stands right now I would not be comfortable just leaving and holding on to my MKR - there is far too much uncertainty. I only have the ability to act through the existing defined rules of governance. It’s not like I have some sort of special privilege. In this case I’m simply making a governance proposal which is something that’s available for anyone to do. It’s not like I can just push anything through, just look at the Sagittarius Engine - it was rejected by the community and isn’t happening, I’m now trying to design something better that hopefully will be more interesting for the community (completely for free, just like everything else I’m doing).

At this point I owe this project nothing and I have every right to just sell my MKR and leave, but I choose to try to turn things around and make MKR an asset that I am comfortable holding without having to lose sleep over how things are developing. I am willing to stay involved for another year to try to put in place the clean money vision and the decentralized workforce framework (I briefly explained it on a recent governance call), and then beyond that I am going to pull out and stop being active in “deep governance” other than passively delegating and potentially using my public platform to promote the project and the important role it can play in mitigating the climate catastrophe.

But if something as simple as offboarding a facilitator has to devolve into absurd drama, then I am just gonna gtfo. There’s no reason why I should have to deal with this kind of madness.

And to be clear, I already stated the entirety of my interests in the beginning of this post. Hopefully this is already obvious but all the claims and accusations Ashleigh made are lies or heavily distorted facts, and obviously the entire narrative is extremely biased and one sided. It’s funny how Ashleigh is accusing me of “going to war”, and then explodes with a tornado of libel because I dared to make a governance proposal.

Alright, so why do I believe we should offboard Seb? Before I get into my reasons I’ll provide some context for why I approached this the way I did. Before posting this proposal, I had a private conversation with Seb, and in that conversation he made it clear to me that his objective had always been to leave the RWA core unit and do something else that better suits his skills. I think that is a really admirable and for that reason I decided to try to not get into the details of why I thought we should remove him, to minimize the likelihood that the ensuing drama would impact his reputation and ability to get a job elsewhere in the ecosystem. At this point I have no choice though, as this is itself becoming a conspiracy theory so in an effort to try to not cause brain damage to the DAO I’ll have to share the facts that make me believe that Seb is not a good fit to be a facilitator of the RWA CU. Honestly I’m pretty sad about this, I wish there was a way to avoid facilitator politics ending up with this kind of personal stuff that then becomes public record. If we aren’t able to be professional about this we will fail because nobody in their right mind would want to be a facilitator.

First of all, Seb does not have the necessary level of experience doing financial transactions compared to someone like Will who is actually an experienced professional. This is a problem for counterparties because they expect to be dealing with a professional. This alone should really be enough to replace a Facilitator.

The main reason why I want Seb to leave as Facilitator is because I believe he has engaged in what I call private entanglement by doing things such as having personally signed contracts with collateral counterparties that give him special legal rights and proposing legal structures to the DAO from his platform as Facilitator where he personally controls the relationship with the lawyers. I won’t go into more details of this as I really hope we can still avoid this going full court of public opinion, but there’s been enough of this that I think the only option is for Seb to leave.

This pattern of behaviour is, in my opinion, extremely dangerous in a DAO, as it builds up personal leverage over time. My impression is that Seb simply doesn’t see it that way and doesn’t consider this kind of personal leverage a big problem. Since he intended to step down anyway it may be true in his specific case. That doesn’t change the fact that it is an incredibly bad precedent to set.

It’s simple from the perspective of an MKR holder, if a Facilitator gets enough personal leverage through private entanglement you lose the ability to fire them because they can retaliate in unpredictable ways, and they may even gain the ability to extort the DAO for ever increasing budgets. The whole point of a DAO completely disappears if the base layer of control is by private individuals using personal leverage.

I also believe he should not have supported the centrifuge deals that have gotten through, as their legal structure is extremely risky. New Silver made sense, as it was the first ever RWA deal, and whatever debt we incurred that has to be paid by restructuring it later is justifiable. But then following up with the other deals without fixing their structures I think is was a big mistake that is hard to explain. My impression is that Seb simply has a different attitude towards risk that what I, and I assume other MKR holders, expects from a facilitator. The facilitator should be the one slowing things down and looking out for the worst case scenarios, and then other actors in the ecosystem should be the ones pushing to take risks.

None of this means that I think Seb is bad for the Maker community or couldn’t play an important role elsewhere, in fact I love how he engages in governance and on this forum as a person, I think he is one of the most dynamic characters in the whole community that is able to provide useful input on many subjects. I just think he is not a good fit specifically for the Facilitator role.


I’m sorry, but you have been misinformed. I barely know Rune and I don’t have a close relationship with him—maybe I have spoken to him twice—if that—and actually for as long as I can remember I barely saw him participate–he was irrelevant—which was annoying because dedicated folks like me felt that the protocol needed a founders vision to get Maker going—things were pretty dead here. So, yea I can’t agree with you because you haven’t been here—day in, day out—former Foundation folks like you and others were raking in the doe (I’m saying), while I with others—we was holding it down.

Now, do I think Rune is a visionary? Absolutely. Do I agree with everything he thinks? Absolutely not. Nobody is perfect. In fact most of the time I disagree with both the Community and the Delegates. And I’m pretty sure they All disagree with me. But it’s all love—we All have the same common Goals.

And ya, I and the Other Delegates haven’t made a single DAI (besides SourceCred) for our community services, or received any MKR for our loooong history of being dedicated to the Maker Community and participation in Maker Delegation. Personally. I do it for the love, I do it for myself, I do it for you All.


I dont even know where to being, there are so many misconceptions and untruthful things being said in the post by Ashleigh. I hope the community does not take what she is writing as anything but her own view on a situation she is not even close to. At best she is a second hand source.

The reason I am replying is to STRONGLY go against what she is saying here. Greg has been a phenomenal leader for the BD team, and everyone who worked with him can attest to this except for Ashleigh of course. Greg has participated in almost all of the largest deals everyone in the Maker and Dai community has been able to benefit from. DM me if you want a list :slight_smile: He helped us with all the resources we needed to make Dai the succes it is today. All the integrations and major deals have been a direct outcome of how he handled the team. Leading one of the most succesful BD and growth teams in the industry. To come in with slander like this is just pathetic, and I have no idea what motivation Ashleigh has to do so. Everyone who was part of the team back then knows that it is all just lies.


This will be my only reply on this topic/post. I will only refute things that are outright lies and/or slander me and my business partners. I have no interest in engaging further. If you don’t believe me, so be it.

I was one of the earliest non technical employees of Makerdao and was responsible for overseeing the adoption of single collateral Dai.

No you weren’t. I hired you after well after other non-technical roles (including mine, obviously) had been onboarded.

We all believed in this vision.

Other people believed in his vision, you weren’t there.

We had a group chat that was jokingly titled “Purple Pill”

This just really doesn’t need to be talked about ever again.

I have a suspicion that it has something to do with the company owned by Greg and Joe which I believe Rune is an investor in.

Rune is not an investor in RWA Company LLC nor any other business in which I am an investor/owner, nor is his investment in any of these businesses being contemplated.

They have previously tried to insist on middle man payments to their entity in exchange for being listed as a RWA on makerdao, but I will relegate this to a side note now***(below).

Our services and business model (which may have to change given the changes being proposed to the RWF vertical in Maker) are laid out pretty clearly on our website. Is there a solution to onboarding RWA that doesn’t have operating expenses?

Greg gave himself the title of “Head of Business Development” and proceeded to hire people to develop business on his behalf, despite never having closed a significant deal on his own.

Matt (the former COO) invented the title, if I recall. I was hired to do a job and I think the results were pretty good looking back on it. We’ll have to agree to disagree on what one would constitute as “significant.”

I believe this company was also intended to be a “risk assessor” (read: middle man) for various real world asset platforms that wanted to onboard into the maker ecosystem.


Interestingly, from what I have heard, Greg and Joe were perfectly happy with the state of progress as it related to Real World Assets (RWA) being brought onto the platform until they realized they would not be able to charge a middleman fee.

You have got to be kidding me. Some exhibits of my public discontent with the way things have been run, in no particular order…

  1. [P1-DROP] MIP6 Application: Peoples Company DROP: US Agricultural Real Estate - #24 by g_dip
  2. Real-World Assets - Report - 2021-05 - #12 by g_dip
  3. [Signal Request] Raise SF On RWA When Issuers Unilaterally Change Terms - #24 by g_dip
  4. A Framework for Real-World Assets - #15 by g_dip
  5. Some comments on the state of the DAO
  6. Real-World Finance Core Unit Report - 2021-06 - #13 by g_dip

It seems they have now begun to wage war, behind closed doors of course, against any such programs which are not amenable to their management fee.

This is really just absurd. We were as surprised as everyone else by the recent proposed changes to the RWA process, we might have to pivot our entire business model to remain competitive. I suppose I could have started slinging mud in the forums about stuff I’m still pissed off about from 2019, but the changes seem to be going in a positive direction and at the end of the day we want what’s best for MakerDAO.

This is conjecture based off of things I have heard and seen, so obviously DYOR.

Conjecture + lies + posting in public = slander. Not to mention this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of your post, and I have nothing to do with whatever is going on right now. This is clearly an attempt to get back at me for some fictitious slight you believe happened years ago. I literally have not spoken to you once since you left the Foundation and have never interfered with your success thereafter, let’s just move on?


This is the first time ashleigh_schap has posted — let’s welcome them to our community!



I don’t know if this is relevant, but for the community who may not know the people mentioned in the previous post, I feel it’s important to talk with facts and avoid judging based on what we hear or read.
Greg was not just Head of Business Development, he was and still is someone who is constantly helping Maker to growth, in each of its stages. He helped us (me and the others that were part of the BD team) to structure the most complex deals, and, at the same time, he was thinking about how to scale with RWA.

@ashleigh_schap , you probably wrote that post based on your experience, which I find surprising, because Greg developed the SAI-DAI growth strategy from scratch, he also planned on how to increase Dai demand without the dependency of the DeFi farming, alternatives on how to stabilize the peg, and explain to the community why that was relevant, during black Thursday -!!!- he was pointing the direction on how the BD team through the network we have, could help the protocol in those hard times…

Regarding Rune’s direction, I’m happy to see someone proposing one direction! Now it’s time for the community to vote and decide if that’s what we want. I invite you to help us to improve Maker. Writing rumors doesn’t help. Coming with proposals and discussing ideas is better.


Leaving aside the drama, I’d like to address Rune’s main points about Seb’s role as a facilitator, which is after all the main point of this post. Having worked with Seb and Will from the early days of what became the RWF, I can offer my opinion of Seb’s competency in his role. Yes, he is perhaps a little unconventional, in the sense that he combines a very traditional and professional demeanor with a certain degree of gumption, which is very necessary in order to create a new model of finance. I believe the RWA initiative could not have succeeded without him. His perception of risk is keen and astute, encompassing both minute details and the big picture, and he has an amazing instinct for balancing different kinds of risk. His unique blend of skills and awareness have been essential in making the progress we have made.

And more specifically, the critique of personal entanglement is, in my opinion, misguided. Seb took on personal risk in order to make progress when there was no alternative. In order to hire a law firm, after spending a year first asking the Foundation for legal support and then asking how the DAO can get legal counsel, he searched tirelessly for the best legal counsel he could find and made an enormous effort to get competent lawyers to help - the issue being there was no legal entity that could engage legal counsel on behalf of the DAO. He therefore had to engage law firms via his own company.

This is related to the point that Seb allowed the second phase of Centrifuge deals to proceed. After New Silver waited for a year to be onboarded, the next group of asset originators had waited nearly that long in some cases and while Seb tenaciously figured out a way to engage legal counsel, Centrifuge agreed to upgrade their legal structure which ultimately depended on having legal counsel representing the DAO if only in a “virtual” way. To mitigate the risk of having no legal recourse with Centrifuge assets, he insisted the asset originators have co-investors alongside Maker and took a tiny investment position himself, once again in order to protect Maker’s interests. The point of this investment was to be treated as any other investors of the asset originator, in terms of being notified of any changes in terms, and more importantly, allowing Maker to benefit from the legal recourse taken by those investors in the worst case. There was simply no other way to enforce Maker’s position in the real world, and Seb had the foresight to see a way to mitigate that risk.

Therefore, it seems quite unjustified and unfair that he would be criticized for doing things that somehow are being construed as personal actions, when in fact he steered the best possible course for Maker while getting real world assets launched. This does not even account for the fact that he and Christian have made a huge effort to research and identify the best possible real world structure for Maker to conduct the activities of the RWF core unit, including the ability to engage legal counsel in a more direct way. This structure was ready to be launched, and now this interpretation of his actions, which sounds much like criticisms coming from others who were not so keenly aware of the early course of events, has caused a highly competent leader and facilitator to leave the ship. Tragic and unfair, and a true loss for Maker.

I had no relationship with Seb before I joined his team. But I will defend him and his actions to the end.


As a regular pleb holder of MKR and attendee of many of the weekly governance calls that are live streamed on YouTube, I must say this post seems malicious and emotionally biased almost to “get back” at your former employer.

Rune created the project, assembled a team and has been as conscious about governance as possible at least publicly. Further, Rune’s concern about the environment is REAL and this may be a big factor in institutional adoption of crypto as we say Tesla defer payment acceptance of Bitcoin citing environmental reasons, it is obvious other institutions might cite similar concerns and Rune’s approach is pragmatic as it is early (many big projects are ignoring this issue, but MKR is at least talking about it).

From working in crypto projects myself, I know that the transition from after a presale and gathering ETH to being able to make bank account payments to team members, pay marketing people etc, creating a corporation is very common, but you make it sound so alien and scary, it makes me doubt your own involvement in the nitty gritty if projects (isn’t one of your own projects, Liquity protocol a few billions in market cap? ).

Unfortunately Ashleigh, I am doubting your intentions of this post as malicious and remember it is very easy to throw stone at a glass house but very difficult to build it back. Please refrain from this and I wish you the best and much success.



Okay, so the problem is Maker Governance. People voted things and processes were followed. I understand you created or influenced Maker Governance processes (the initials at least) and I assume you didn’t vote on the polls you are not happy with. Neither did you engage in any kind of constructive discussion at the time or proposed solutions (meaning not just laying out your grand vision). Neither publicly nor privately.

You might have plenty of reasons not to be involved earlier. It is also your right to come here and try to undo what the other MKR holders have done without caring about the reasons it was done. But maybe you should have a discussion with Maker Governance. Again, a discussion is something both ways.

To be precise, I said I wanted to stop doing RWA. RWF is not RWA. From my last budget:

It should be expected that new CUs will emerge from the RWF CU on RWA and finance topics.

I called for other people to do RWA CUs many times. Sounds like no one wanted to do it. I can only understand, I would not do it again (was a great experience still). The game is rigged, but you cannot lose if you do not play. It should have been easier with time (more institutional deals) but you are increasing the difficulty by influencing risk assessment (feel free to answer my comments). Anyway, thanks for giving me the opportunity to move on.

PS: Just to highlight that @williamr is not taking the interim role of living target, I misinterpreted based on @rune onboarding text. The team will in effect auto-manage itself during the process, those guys are great. I will stick to my plan.


To clarify this for our team and stakeholders involved. I think they need our reassurance. I’ll respect the governance process wrt to voting. Therefore I will only fulfil the role of CU facilitator after the outcome of the voting process has been confirmed. In case @SebVentures decides to leave before the end of the voting process, I am happy to be the first point of contact for any questions from the team and/or our stakeholders to reassure them of continuity.


I don’t have enough criteria to know if Sébastien has done a good job or not. However, I don’t like the way things are unfolding.

To me, this looks more like a boss firing an employee, rather than a community décision.

@rune I am not sure that your involvement, in the way you are doing it, makes gouvernance any stronger.

But you do. Everybody respects you and even fears you. You have tremendous power. You need to be aware of that.

I am sorry, but Ashleigh has a point here. Her post is awful in many ways and I highly condemn it, but I think in this part she is right.

@rune you need to understand that a démocracy is way less efficient than a dictatorship. If it was true that Sébastien has done a bad job, eventually this would have come up, but in a very différent (and probably more respectful) way.

You are worried about the bad state of Gouvernance, yet your actions make it worse. Right now the DAO is the worst of both worlds: it is décentralized enough to make people legally liable, but centralized enough to have people fired at will.


The proposal made by rune is destroying my confidence in Maker.
days ago , he proposal Sagittarius Engine dilution MKR to 3M ,
now , he want offboarding Seb @SebVentures who I think is genius guy in crypto.
Don’t listen to what people say, watch what they do .
when he said Clean money vision , what he do was Sagittarius Engine ,
when he said Arrangers model for scalable RWA, what he do is offboarding SebVentures.
@SebVentures earns my reputation not because he has founder logo , but his proof of work , great content contribute to the community( forum\twitter) .
I will strong against this proposal , Maker community should move forward together , we need group wisdom ,not office politics .


I know very little about the specific issue with Seb but wanted to comment regarding delegation. In my view, this kind of relationship is supposed to happen and is a good thing.

Large delegators have a right to ask their delegates to vote a certain way and delegates should indeed take that into account. Delegation makes it easier to vote but with or without it, the larger MKR holders have power to swing decisions their way. I’m all for delegates having their own thoughts but if it conflicts with their delegator’s wishes, the delegator is simply going to undelegate and vote directly.


Aren’t we holding a vote re Sebventures? So, if he “wins,” he stays, no?

If Seb wins, it’s tough beans, Rune, you lost. And if Seb loses, it’s bon voyage, mon ami. Am I missing something? This is MKR governance and politics at its finest.

Lastly, it seems like some ex-Foundation people (well, actually just one person) carry serious emotional baggage. I don’t think any of us in the DAO gives a rat’s ass about petty squabbles from years past and certainly don’t want to read about it here while there are more important things to do. Get a life.