PaperImperium Delegate Platform

Growth, Strength, and Profits

Key Info

Name: Field Technologies, Inc.
Forum: @PaperImperium
Meet Your Delegates Video: Meet Your Delegate | Ep. 1 Ft. PaperImperium & ElProgreso - YouTube

Core Values

  • Maximize profits while minimizing risk to the Maker Protocol
  • Tight internal controls of cost and operations
  • Position Maker to stand alongside central banks and international finance organizations

Delegate Statement

I see Maker as a powerful, gargantuan force for stabilizing the world economy and enriching MKR holders who take that seriously. Maker has unique financial “superpowers” that can best be used at scale, which requires the protocol to grow exponentially from its current position. In five years, I want Maker to be well known in all circles of power and finance, and in ten years to be well known in most households. We have an opportunity to do much good in the world, and reap the profits that come with fulfilling that mission. Maker has a destiny, and I am committed to making that destiny manifest.

Maker currently wallows in capital inefficiency and an imperfect method of bridging the real world markets and the protocol. It is as though the world was gifted with Excalibur, and instead of changing the very landscape of the financial world, the legendary blade is left in its sheath, the edge dulled and its potential unfulfilled.

Addressing these problems is my top priority, and have announced a plan to safely allow Maker to move into the publicly traded financial markets, create constituencies to defend Maker politically through a tidal wave of charitable giving financed by vast holdings of governments’ own debts, and scale the supply and reach of DAI by at least an order of magnitude. Maker should only accept rates commensurate with the risk it shoulders, and providing safe sources of revenue to complement our core businesses should be at the forefront of our thoughts. Profits and scale bring with them security.

At the same time, Maker’s messaging and profile must undergo similar changes. Maker is no longer a quirky, anti-establishment crypto project. I brought a senior representative of the Federal Reserve to speak with us, and also a member of the powerful House Financial Services Committee. Central banks and international finance organizations now approach us for data. US Senators make their advisors available to us to answer questions about upcoming legislation. Who else has so diligently labored to secure Maker through diplomacy? I need your support – directly through delegation or indirectly through voting your approval of the initiatives Maker requires – to ensure Maker sits at least as an equal alternative to central banks, governments, and the traditional financial order.

We have outgrown discussion panels in ivory tower cloisters and now require a seat at the table with the powers we are increasingly interacting with. The world will continue to evolve, and it is vital that we harness that evolution to serve the world and the protocol. Maker offers a different, more benign, path than the existing financial order, and it deserves to be treated as a peer and partner for financial stability and growth – not feared because we have done a poor job of introducing ourselves to the world.

Maker deserves to move freely in the real world, and its growth will be stunted if it dawdles inside the crypto financial sphere. Crypto is not enough.

We should be financiers to governments, crowned heads, corporate titans, and tomorrow’s innovators. The crypto markets are simply too small for this amazing machine we call Maker to realize its full potential to directly alter rates of growth and inflation, while providing a counterbalance to politically incentivized central banks and international agencies. It is imperative we demonstrate both our value as partners for, and our capability to act independently of, established centralized finance.

Maker has many opportunities before it, but it also requires steady hands to avoid unforced errors. There will be enough challenges in front of us without inflicting them needlessly upon ourselves. By delegating your MKR votes to me, I can make sure professional, rigorous processes will be used by all operational core units. When messes are made, I will ensure they are cleaned up and that lessons are learned. The diffusion of responsibility within the DAO structure makes it difficult to ask hard questions when a hand is held out seeking funds. I have a history of asking those uncomfortable questions, and will continue to do so.

Being a steward of voting power is a responsibility I take seriously. It is not a small thing to relinquish decision-making power to another party. But I need your support – either directly through delegation or through voting for initiatives in the plan outlined above – to help Maker become the beating heart of the world economy. It does not matter which, as long as you share my vision of what Maker can become.

I am always available to speak in more detail about any issue or concern, and am already well practiced at listening to the privately voiced concerns of MKR holders and community members. Do not hesitate to reach out to me with ideas, problems, new information, or simply to vent.

Communication is important, and that is especially so when some positions are nuanced. Anyone interested in delegating or coordinating votes for a common cause may request inclusion on a weekly summary of position on recent and upcoming votes.

You may delegate voting power to Field Technologies, Inc. (aka @PaperImperium) here.

Conflicts of Interest

  • My personal holdings include mainly technology and real estate related assets, with no major investments in financial services. I will recuse myself from any issue relating to a company that represents >1% of my liquid net worth or >2% of my total net worth (currently Apple, Alphabet, and Gladstone Land).

  • Field Technologies, Inc. has no substantial financial holdings, and has historically operated in the cultural resource management consulting space. I will recuse myself and Field Technologies. Inc. from any issue relating to a business partner. Without naming specific companies in advance, these are likely to be limited to large engineering firms and other infrastructure-related construction services providers.

I have read and agree to abide by the Delegate Code of Conduct.

Waiver of liability

By delegating to Field Technologies, Inc., you acknowledge and agree that Field Technologies, Inc. will participate on a best efforts basis and will not be liable for any form of damages related to participation in the Maker Protocol or MakerDAO.

You may delegate voting power to Field Technologies, Inc. (aka @PaperImperium) here.


Happy to see the application. Always appreciate your active participation and support!

1 Like

Anyone who couldn’t make it, here is a (brief) glance at what I see on the immediate agenda for Maker:


Voting Record Aug. 9, 2021

I have voted my delegated MKR for the current executive. It contains CU budgets, a few prudent parameter changes to rates and DCs, and also some changes to ilk registries to make them more transparent (which is a request I have received twice from academic researchers attempting to learn more about Maker, so I know it will be useful)

I have abstained on the poll for B. Protocol, but with the intention of coming to an informed decision before the poll ends in two week.

I have voted yes on the poll for the Dai Foundation CU. They hold vital IP, and will need financial support. Any details that are still in the air can be worked out later, but there is no alternative to supporting this CU and helping it coordinate with the DAO.

I have voted yes on the poll for the MKR vesting plan for Growth CU. I am generally opposed to any unnecessary dilution of MKR. But in this case, the relatively low DAI-based budget for this CU combined with its excellent track record of over-delivering, and the modest MKR request plan has convinced me to vote yes.

I have voted yes to greenlight RWA-120db for further consideration as a collateral asset to onboard. This is an interesting asset and I see no reason not to hear more specifics and proposed terms from Risk.

If you would like to discuss these or other proposals in detail, please DM me here, on RocketChat, or email me.

If you would like to delegate MKR to me (which would also boost the weighting of polls that have not yet closed), you may do so here.


Thanks for sharing.
You are more than welcome to join the Know Your MIP call tomorrow (in 24 hours from now - 3pm UTC) to watch B.Protocol’s founder presentation and ask whatever questions you might have on the B.Protocol MIP.

Or/and watch the recording of the presentation he gave on the last Governance and Risk call last week -


Voting Record Aug. 16, 2021

I have voted yes on the proposed PAX Peg Stability Module. This will provide urgent diversification of our dollar-proxy reserves. It also offers a new, powerful on/off ramp for DAI and USD through Paxos’ active integration. This will leave Maker and Paxos both better able to challenge USDC/Tether market dominance.

I have voted yes to reduce Liquidation Ratios on a number of ilks. Generally these are modest and reflect better performance by Liq. 2.0 + a bit more market maturity. I’m a bit uneasy by the 10% reductions in BAL, AAVE, et al, but they represent tiny exposures to the protocol for the most part.

I have voted yes on the greenlight poll for CapitalNow Cannabis (CNC1-DROP). The conservative nature of counterparty risk and using one line of business (invoices) to secure another (equipment loans) make me ready to see this one onboarded, provided the terms are acceptable.

I have voted yes on the greenlight polls for both NCP01-DROP and CGFF-DROP. I am not ready to support an active vault yet, but see no reason not to continue to learn more about them at the moment.

I have not yet come to a decision about the B.Protocol poll, but am determined to make an informed vote before it closes. At the moment, I have voted to abstain.


My Next Medium-Term Priorities To Grow Maker

  1. Our real-world assets (RWA) program is finally entering full swing with a $15m debt ceiling for 6S Capital, a clear path forward to iron out issues with Centrifuge, and the prospect of financing the Solar X project. These will provide us ample opportunity to renew efforts to show how Maker and DeFi are integrating positively with the real-world economy. More details to come in the next few weeks.

  2. The proposal by Deco Protocol has opened the door to a powerful new way to solidify DAI as the bedrock of decentralized finance. The proposal itself is somewhat complex and I encourage you to read it, but the main benefit for Maker is not the ability to offer fixed rate vaults, but as a way for Maker to easily finance both zero-coupon (and thus fixed return) and variable-rate offerings. DeFi lacks such high-quality collateral from high-quality counterparties akin to Treasury bills. DeFi also lacks the functional repurchase market that kind of collateral enables. Both of these products (yield and zero) look like they could fulfill vital roles in the decentralized finance ecosystem, and would have the key quality of making denomination in DAI as the default everywhere. In short, I see this as a powerful weapon to take DeFi market share from USDC and expand the moat around Maker. I am not qualified to evaluate the code, and will yield to the opinions of our own experts. Should Deco Protocol not perform as advertised, I’m certain we can find another way to do this. But this is an idea worth pursuing.

  3. For a number of reasons, Maker is increasingly the financier to institutions and whales. We have simply not succeeded in getting DAI as the method of payment – much less the unit of account – for a cup of coffee or for a gallon of gasoline. I want us to find and partner with stablecoins that have a tight geographic focus. This would be beneficial to both Maker and the smaller, regional stablecoin. Maker could provide oracles, technical expertise, and capitalization to ensure a defensible peg. The regional stablecoin could provide DAI locked into a smart contract as backing (and thus continuously earning fees to the extent it is from vaults) and tackle getting smaller merchants, local payment processors, and peer-to-peer transactions to a scale where that regional stablecoin can become viable. This frees Maker to continue to focus on its strengths of serving institutions, while also revisiting its mission to bank the unbanked and serve those in hyper inflated countries. It would also serve as a bulwark against the growing Chainlink ecosystem, and what would be a relatively minor investment of DAI by Maker would likely pay large investment returns by allowing smaller, regional stablecoins to focus on growing retail transactions instead of reinventing their back end.

  4. Continue outreach to academics. We need external, reputable eyes to publish more about Maker. In particular, I am keen to see “stress tests” done on both our balance sheet and peg. This will both highlight our strengths – overcollateralization, transparency, and compatibility with Federal Reserve policy – and position Maker as the responsible adult while USDC and Tether squabble about what counts as a cash equivalent to back their tokens.


Voting Record Aug. 30, 2021

I have voted yes on Lower Flash Mint Fee to 0%. This is a handy tool for the DAI ecosystem and has not yet seen use. It was never designed to raise revenue, and this is a marginal improvement to the DAI ecosystem to make this tool free to use.

I have voted yes on Add RWA007 (SolarX) as a new RWA Vault Type. I believe this deal is most risky in the very first tranche – which is ~$3.25 million – before the PPA is in hand. While this is not ideal, the land this tranche would be used to purchase is itself valuable, and protects us against total or major loss, which means Maker is unlikely to suffer any material loss even in worst case scenario.

Additionally, the SolarX project is of a digestible size, and provides (as I requested early in the process and am glad to see) debt service reserves and positive exposure to higher interest rates in the future in the form of 550 bps above SOFR.

Equally important, this is a project that can be used as a tangible, relatable example of the benefits of MakerDAO to the real world financial system. The construction will produce jobs, and the project is one of renewable, environmentally friendly energy. This will provide a powerful counter to the narrative being pushed in some policy circles that crypto is merely a casino or tool for speculation.

My support for the SolarX project should not be construed as general support for a project finance program or the RWA Foundation structure. I concluded to support this project on its own, individual merits, and some risks were offset by the limited nature of catastrophic loss and the substantial political benefits of this project.

If you would like to delegate MKR to me (which would also boost the weighting of polls that have not yet closed), you may do so here.


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?