Just a quick heads up that the MIPs executive today will include an increase of the ETH-A debt ceiling following on from a request from @Risk.
I considered a number of options to pursue as I wasn’t keen on bundling the ETH-A ceiling increase with the MIPs executive. Unfortunately, I couldn’t figure out a better solution than bundling them with the current tools available to us. Here are the options I considered:
Doing the MIPS executive prior to the ETH-A executive
I was concerned that this would have the same effect as bundling the two directly (people would vote to get the MIPs executive ‘out of the way’ to clear the path for the ETH-A debt ceiling raise.) In addition to having the same effect, it’s also more comlicated (more execs)
Doing the ETH-A executive prior to the MIPS executive
There was a good chance that this would delay subsequent executives, because the MIPs executive is usually active for at least 4 days. In addition, the MIPs executive is supposed to be the only thing that less-engaged voters need to worry about each month, for this reason, rescheduling it is damaging.
Doing them both at once
I didn’t seriously consider this because of the weakening of protocol security, the issues with the front-end, and the increased coordination issues.
Polling on whether to include the ETH-A increase in the MIPs executive
I did consider doing this, but the poll would have been active for less than 24 hours, and wouldn’t have been particularly representative.
Not including the ETH-A increase and putting it in on Friday
I would have opted for this if Cyrus had failed to convince me that it was urgent. Subsequent developments have proved that he was correct.
Bundling the ETH-A increase with the MIPS executive
This is what I ended up going for. This increases the chance that the executive will pass, which corrupts the MIPs process to some extent. Unfortunately the alternatives were also all bad. I do think that the damage is limited in this particular case. The MIPs that made it to the final executive do not appear to be overly controversial. In addition, it’s always possible for someone to undo or amend the MIPs in a future governance cycle, so if there is an issue, it is reparable.
Regarding precedent, I am less worried because at some point we will be upgrading the DSChief contract to resolve the bundling issue.
This is mostly just a heads up and an explanation for the bundle, but feel free to discuss or suggest alternatives to pursue in the future.