MIP4c2-SP1: MIP6 Amendments

MIP4c2-SP1: MIP6 Amendments

Preamble

MIP4c2-SP#: 1
MIP to be Amended: MIP6 
Author(s): Charles St.Louis (@CPSTL)
Contributors: @LongForWisdom
Status: Request for Comments (RFC)
Date of Amendment Submission: 2020-05-28
Date of ratification: <yyyy-mm-dd>

Specification

Motivation

Today, MIP6 currently requires MIP6 collateral applications to go through Domain Greenlight (MIP8) to be eligible for the Community Greenlight Poll (MIP9). Based on community feedback as well as general thoughts from the Authors and Contributors, the collateral onboarding process would be more efficient and effective if it did not require Domain Greenlight (MIP8) to occur before the Community Greenlight Poll (MIP9). This amendment MIP requests to allow collateral applications to be eligible for MIP9 Community Greenlight polls at least two weeks after the MIP6 application has been proposed, moving the Domain Greenlight process until after the polls have concluded. This amendment to the collateral onboarding process also helps with Domain team bandwidth and allows the Domain teams to allocate their time to collateral assets only after the community has approved them.

This amendment to MIP6 affects the general collateral onboarding flow previously proposed in the ratified Collateral Onboarding MIPs Set. Ultimately, it allows the collateral onboarding process to become more efficient.

Amended Components

  • MIP6c1: Process Overview
    • Add small phrasing updates throughout MIP6 to improve clarity/legibility.
    • Remove bullet point 3
      • Replace content of bullet point 4 and convert the bullet point to number 3 (as bullet point 3 was removed).

Amendment Pull Request (PR)

Relevant Information

  • n/a

While we are at it with MIP6 we might include a token numbering system, possibly adopting this one https://medium.com/at-par/unique-referencing-and-identification-in-the-token-universe-cross-chain-worldwide-and-5eeecdc6f567 unless someone else has a better idea.

Why bother with a numbering system you might ask? Well as long as we just onboard the top ERC20s, token identification is not a problem, the problem comes when we start onboarding crypto tokens based on real world assets. The number of shares, real estate funds and bonds is enormous and could lead to confusion and errors. A numbering system could prevent errors and ease handling, which why it could be an idea to include it in MIP6 sooner rather than later.

We could test the numbering system on our existing crypto collateral and see how it works. So we are not surprised by anything when we start onboarding real world assets.

2 Likes

Hey @Planet_X, I do agree that a universal collateral ID system will be necessary and will become an essential part of the future collateral onboarding process. Still, I am not sure it should be added to this amendment MIP. This amendment MIP is going into June’s governance cycle (June1-3 is the formal submission period), and creating/adding a universal collateral ID system to MIP6 is quite a big decision. Because of this, I believe it requires more discussion from the Maker Community. So, for now, I would say that it may not be best to force it into this amendment and instead create a forum thread to continue the conversation and experiment with it on our existing crypto collateral applications. Then, once there is a rough consensus surrounding the implementation, someone could draft up an amendment MIP and propose it into a future governance cycle. What do you think?

1 Like

Hi @charlesstlouis I agree, it is too early to add it now.

2 Likes