PaperImperium Delegate Platform

Voting Record Sept. 7, 2021

I voted for the current executive on Sept. 4, and it has already been executed.

I plan to vote yes on Greenlight Polls for both RARE and RAI. This is consistent with my position to generally vote yes on Greenlight Polls unless there is a major, obvious issue. This should not be interpreted as support for onboarding these two types of collateral – merely that there is no obvious reason not to let a detailed discussion and analysis begin. I do encourage both of these applicants to wait until their market capitalizations are higher before actively pursuing Maker to accept their tokens as collateral.


If this is what greenlights have become, what would you think about adding a step in the middle of the process? Currently our debates around collateral seem to happen after all of the onboarding work has been done, I think it would be more efficient to have those debates prior to expending time and energy.


Personally, I think Greenlight Polls should just be done away with or turned into something else as you suggest. I can’t see that they matter unless the collateral is outright rejected. I would love to see a different process. It seems like a waste of gas and probably gets hopes up unnecessarily for applicants in the current form, but am open to being convinced otherwise.


@g_dip ,

With regards to collateral onboarding the Greenlight Polls have lost meaning. They had some kind of function in the early days, but with collateral onboarding in many cases increasingly a technical/risk issue having them in the present format makes little sense.


I think the Greenlight process was a good community experiment and I agree that its usefulness is questionable.

How do we move this process from, hey, this is a cool collateral to onboard and delegate the work to a DAO team vs. actually doing the work before proposing the collateral. I think we would end up with a much shorter list of high-quality, Dai generating collateral types and refocus the expended time/energy to the appropriate party. It’s still a community-driven process since the people interested in onboarding a collateral type actually do the work.

Our enablement model is to provide the process/tools/guardrails, get out of the way, and allow others to put skin in the game including a risk/reward model. There is a collateral incentive discussion that is needed and I’ll be teeing that up shortly.

To be clear, this doesn’t mean CES sits idly by and wait for the community to propose collateral. There are the current collateral operations, real world experiments, and a lot of work that needs to go into creating the enablement model. One of the goals is to ensure the collateral bottlenecks are removed…hopefully, for good. :wink:


Voting Record September 13, 2021

I voted yes to offboard KNC as a collateral type. There are only 4 active vaults with less than 2400 DAI in outstanding debt.

I voted yes to onboard Gelato USDC-DAI as a collateral type. LP of two stablecoins. No reason not to try it.

I voted yes to Adopt the Debt Ceiling Instant Access Module (DC-IAM) for PSM-PAX-A. This is a best practice, and should be implemented.

I voted yes to Ratification Poll for GovAlpha Core Unit Budget Q4 2021 to Q1 2022 (MIP40c3-SP29). Routine budget, no surprises.

I voted yes to Ratification Poll for Risk Core Unit MKR Compensation (MIP40c3-SP25). The instance of “retroactive” MKR should not be considered an endorsement of this approach in the future. I am open to considering it on a case-by-case basis, but am generally opposed to it.

I voted yes to Ratification Poll for Modify Core Unit Budget - Sustainable Ecosystem Scaling (MIP40c3-SP31). Routine budget, no surprises.

I voted yes to Ratification Poll for Collateral Engineering Services Core Unit, CES-001. I will monitor how this CU delivers value in its first few quarters, but want to note that a major reason that I support the concept of this unit is the principle of parallelism within the DAO. At present, there is no alternative reservoir of talent to swiftly move in should PE go dark for legal, financial, or personnel reasons. This CU is an opportunity to build more talent within the DAO that is capable of stepping in for our most basic duties if needed, and as a way to develop more talent that may want to start future CUs or move into existing ones. The service of collateral onboarding is also something that the DAO can use, and an updated, streamlined process would probably be an improvement in the rapidly changing crypto/RWA landscape.

I have abstained from Ratification Poll for StarkNet Engineering Core Unit, SNE-001. I intend to vote yes or no when I have more thoroughly developed opinions. If you care to lobby me privately for/against this CU, please feel free to do so. I am actively soliciting input. Update: I have changed my vote to yes. This is not a large expense with high potential payoff. Even if it results in zero utility for the protocol, the expense is reasonable to take a risk with.

I voted yes to Ratification Poll for Development & UX Core Unit, DUX-001. Their work done while incubated has been good.

I voted yes to Ratification Poll for Strategic Happiness Core Unit, SH-001. This is an inexpensive CU and the facilitator is for the most part working for free. Like SourceCred, it is a good way to get new DAO members to engage with the community until they find something here they are passionate about.

I have abstained from Ratification Poll for RWA Foundations (MIP58). It seems redundant with MIP21, and no reason to introduce superfluous MIPs that could have some unintended consequence down the road – like conflicting with other MIPs. MIP58 is concerned with legal structure and details that should mostly be in the articles of incorporation (or their equivalent) of a legal entity doing business with MakerDAO. If we decide to tweak something in the legal arrangement addressed in MIP58, would we then need to go through a process to amend the MIP first? I’m open to input to change my vote. I am not outright opposed to it at present, it just seems unnecessary and I do not want to introduce something into the system that will prove irritating later.


Regarding MIP58, I fail to see the redundancy with MIP21. MIP58 is mainly concerned with decision making (introducing the DAO Resolution) while MIP21 is cashflows oriented. Moreover, MIP58 directly recommends using MIP21 for cashflows.

MIP58 doesn’t ask for a specific implementation. Maybe it could be used for other legal structures as well (but will require updates even if we tried to keep concepts generic). It’s really an interface like EIP-20. MIP58 is a formalized way to interact with the many real-world touchpoints we will have in the future. It allows a decentralized MKR decision have an impact in the real world in a scalable way.

1 Like

Field Technologies is supporting the current executive. These are mostly technical changes and uncontroversial.

Field Technologies voted yes for Adjusting Auction Parameters for ETH-A, ETH-B, ETH-C, and WBTC-A. I found the arguments by @Primoz both simple and convincing. Like the executive, these changes are technical in nature and do not appear to be very controversial.

Field Technologies voted yes for Increase the System Surplus Buffer. I am generally in favor of Maker holding onto cash when possible. Perhaps most importantly, the unclear regulatory environment makes me extremely wary about MakerDAO issuing anything other than DAI. Should MKR be determined a security, all currently existing MKR was minted under the Foundation. I don’t really the DAO to be on the hook for issuing MKR in the manner we would typically do it. Hopefully we can get some legal and regulatory clarity. Note that this has implications about my stance on the upcoming Deco Protocol proposal.

Field Technologies voted to abstain on both Community Greenlight Poll - SB-DDC (Solid Block Detox Digital Coins) and Community Greenlight Poll - REIF-DROP (Commercial Real Estate Assets DROP). This represents a break from my stance to always vote yes on green light polls. My reasoning is still the same – they do not appear to have any real effect on the process of assessing and onboarding collateral. We should just scrap the green light polls. My default stance is now to always abstain from them unless there is some very egregious red flag to cause me to vote no.

Field Technologies is in favor of learning more about both of these proposals, as I am about most applications. Note that regardless of its individual merits, I will still move to block any additional Centrifuge collaterals until the legal structure of those deals has been updated. My understanding is that this is already in progress, so it should just be a matter of waiting for that to be done.


Field Technologies supporting the current executive, as I have every executive thus far.

Field Technologies missed voting on the poll to offboard USDT collaterals, due to my own oversight.


Field Technologies is supporting the current executive.

Field Technologies voted yes to offboard (each in an individual poll):

These collaterals are either underutilized, or are not able to safely scale to the size where they can be profitable.

As per the usual policy, Field Technologies abstained on the current greenlight poll for the Curve stETH-ETH LP token. These polls do not appear to serve a meaningful purpose at the moment, so the policy is to abstain unless a collateral appears to be obviously inappropriate for Maker.

1 Like

Field Technologies voted:

Yes on adding stETH as a vault type. This is a growing collateral class and we should get some share of it.

Yes on Nexo Institutional Vault. My thoughts on this are well known, and will not belabor them again here.

Abstain on PaperImperium Supplemental Compensation. This is my own pay, and it would be inappropriate for me to vote anything other than abstain. I do urgently ask those who support the work I have done to please vote yes. The poll is extremely tight at the moment. I am currently uncompensated except for SourceCred.

Yes on Aave Direct Deposit Module. This isn’t without risk, but has the potential to be an extremely powerful tool to grow DAI supply in a way that generates fees.

Yes on increasing G-UNI USDC-DAI debt ceiling. This has been a runaway success, and thank you to @hexonaut for pushing for this collateral.

Abstain on Greenlight Poll for Curve LP stETH-ETH. My policy is to abstain on green light polls unless there are major red flags, as I don’t think these polls do anything of substance and should be discontinued.

No on Deco Protocol. This was a tough decision, as I like much of the product that is proposed. But the safety of Maker Protocol and DAI holders has to come first, and yield-bearing instruments should not be issued by Maker at this time. I encourage the Deco team to come back in 6 months or a year when there may be more regulatory certainty, but I want Maker to attract as little attention as possible, since we currently engage in few or no activities likely to bring regulatory scrutiny.

Yes on Data Insights Core Unit. We need this yesterday, and the team also made extremely reasonable edits to their scoped budget after constructive input from @Planet_X.

No on Maker Labs Core Unit. This application seemed a bit rushed, and I encourage the applicants to reapply after some more time to build a road map or even consider an incubation with SES. EuroDAI would be very valuable, but it would be such a critical product that it probably needs active assistance from veteran PE members, and a plan for the maintenance of that new product – it has the potential to be so valuable that we really need to get execution correct the first time. But this needs an articulated way to hand off new products without abandonment or adding them to the PE Core Unit’s duties.

Yes for MIP59 (DssCharter). I think this one is fairly uncontroversial, especially given my support for the Nexo Institutional Vault.

No for Content MKT-001 budget proposal. I have been reviewing a number of budget proposals more closely, and those that are consistently coming in under budget just need to do some tweaking. Content appears to have in excess of 56k DAI on hand, and an undrawn 71k DAI in streamed support, and will be fine with a delayed budget. I apologize for not giving this more attention when it was still in RFC, but anticipate a revised budget will not impact their operations.

Yes for Growth GRO-001 budget proposal. I have only closely inspected the bottom-line total, which seems reasonable for the deliverables Growth continues to provide.


Do you have an alternative process in mind? If it is the case that there could be major red flags with some greenlight polls, then checking that there are no such red flags is a necessary step, isn’t it?


Perhaps? My take on greenlight polls is:

  1. They don’t seem to actually influence how prioritized a collateral type is to onboard.

  2. They occur very quickly after a MIP6, and there often hasn’t been any kind of attention paid to them. Everyone in the DAO is busy so we tend to not dig into details until we’re further along. There are exceptions, but that’s my feeling.

Open to suggestions. Or arguments that my impressions are wrong. I just think they serve to unduly get the hopes up for applicants that see their collateral green lighted, but don’t actually serve as a filter except in the cases of notorious collaterals.


I think your first point is valid - perhaps there could be an additional prioritization factor added to these polls before the poll rather than after if you feel that would make the process more efficient?

Even with things as they currently are, I’m not sure how a policy of Abstain vs Vote Against is better than Vote For vs Vote Against. It only makes it more likely that good collateral type gets accidentally rejected at this stage because a small number of voters vote against it while large holders like delegates abstain. Does this change your mind on abstaining from all greenlight polls (unless the collateral is terrible) as a standard policy?

Happy to chat about this and see how to fix it, both in the short and long-term.

1 Like

Yeah, I really don’t have strong feelings on the subject and just try to vote in a way that won’t cause some unforeseen consequences if I’m wrong, since I probably have enough votes to impact a poll

1 Like

Field Technologies has updated its vote on Deco Protocol to yes.

This is with the assumption and strong desire to see Deco operate in an architecture such that users are not interacting with yield tokens that are not their own (hedging their own vault) rather than available on the open market for speculation. This is, of course, as a conservative, precautionary stance towards regulating entities (such as the SEC) that would trigger a legal need for AML/KYC. We want to give these regulatory agencies a wide berth. While this may hamper the possible applications of Deco Protocol, I am now convinced that it is flexible enough to operate within these boundaries in a way that can still add value to Maker.


Disclosure: In the last 24 hours I have been contacted by a number of outside protocols and companies interested in my services. I will be accepting at least one offer, and will make the proper disclosures (when needed) if they are relevant to Maker.


Field Technologies has updated its vote on the Deco Protocol to Abstain.

Regulatory concerns continue to weigh heavily. Maker has decided not to make legal counsel available or to provide funding for legal counsel. In the absence of an informed opinion of whether Deco Protocol implementation would bring Maker under the regulatory purview of a US agency that would then trigger requirements for KYC/AML, Field Technologies will be Abstaining for the time being. There is also some non-public information that also influenced the decision to sit on the sidelines for this one.

Field Technologies voted Abstain from green light polls for CSC and TM2-DROP. These polls seem to be vestigial and unnecessary. I look forward to learning more about both proposals as risk assessments come in and discussion picks up.

Field Technologies voted Yes to the green light poll for OFH (the SocGen proposal) out of an abundance of caution that our governance process not inadvertently derail this deal.

Field Technologies voted Yes for the latest MOMC proposals. They were uncontroversial and have already passed.

Mind sharing this information? or at least what type of information? like was it from the Deco project team? Another project team with a competing project or maybe just legal advice etc? I personally find the idea that our biggest delegate is getting or has information that is not public quite worrying, especially when it is influencing a decision, and on a system where we say so often that transparency is critical.

Given your voting power can sway this, and I think almost any other vote at this time, it kinda feels like this is a way of saying you’re more important than the rest of the MKR voters when you’re getting information not available to the rest of us when it comes to making a decision, especially when you then say that is one of the core reasons for your decision - I believe in the interest of MKR holders, if you have information that would force you to vote one way or another, it should be shared.

Would you also please clarify if there have been any other votes where you have had non-public information that has influenced your vote?


I think it is non-public, does not directly involve Maker or Field Technologies, and is legal in nature. I am unclear the extent to which I can go into details.

I am not a lawyer, do not have access to legal advice on this topic, and am trying to get the appropriate input. Abstention seems the responsibile course of action in this situation. This is literally the kind of thing I had requested funding for in the compensation poll that was defeated last week (which had $10k earmarked to get legal services).

Note that we have had CUs come back for multiple proposal iterations in the past. So the stakes for a defeat are most likely to be that of delay.

I share your frustration, believe me.

I understand the voting power of Field Technologies’ delegation contract is quite high, and have personally reached out to large holders who will be better equipped to sway the outcome. I know there is at least one bloc of votes large enough to alter the vote that is actively monitoring it.

1 Like