Thanks for the questions @ultraschuppi , I think you’ve identified some clarifications that I can edit into the MIP.
There’s no centralization at all! There can be 10 RWA Committees if people would like to start them. I’ll also add that this committee is a step removed from a PPG because it will not be recommending any parameters (someone should probably start a RWF PPG to fill the gap).
The MIP isn’t “bound” to the list of people (which has just been copied/pasted from the original PPG list), as governance can modify the list at any time. Once again there can be many RWA Committees if governance desires.
This is where I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But I do want to take this opportunity to clarify the guidance process in case that’s where the disagreement lies. Right now the RWF CU makes decisions within their mandate and applies those as a binary outcome via an onboarding vote (or at least this is how it’s worked in practice). The process this group will follow is to separate conceptual issues from specific applications and provide guidance to MKR holders and CUs. To process this guidance, we submit votes to the MKR holders to ratify them. For instance, if we should say “All real world assets should have an independent director,” this would go to an on-chain vote and MKR holders could accept or reject it. The RWF CUs can do this as well, but as you mentioned above there’s nothing wrong with redundancy.
This could not be further from the truth. My points to refute this are as follows:
- This committee can’t control anything, it is quite literally limited to providing soft guidance that can then must be accepted or rejected by the MKR holders.
- Even if the committee puts out guidance, the RWF CUs are free to ignore it.
- The current RWF team was invited to have representation on the committee and chose to not participate so that the committee could have greater autonomy, but they can always join via MIP57c1 at any time.
- There is no limit on the number of committees that can form to provide guidance and, if they wanted to for whatever reason, MKR holders can shut this one down at any time by removing all names from the member list
To summarize, this group will not be commenting on specific RWA applications and will keep its guidance to high level issues that impact all RWA in MakerDAO. There’s a history of these issues being overlooked and therefore I believe that a group like this will be beneficial to the DAO. It has no autonomy to enforce its guidance and will be submitting every item on which it provides guidance to be ratified by MKR holders (either as a bundle or individually, depending on input from the governance facilitators in how they think this should work). This is not an exclusive group, anyone can join via subproposal or create a separate committee.