PaperImperium Delegate Platform

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

No, but if there are, I will disclose that

1 Like

Thanks for the quick response. And clarification that it was legal-related - I’ll certainly take your word on that - and I’m also happy to hear that this is the reason for it being non-public. I read the “There is also…” part of the comment, with the term ‘also’ meaning separate to the legal point you made before - which had me worried that this was simply some other information that wasn’t available to the rest that had come from another team.

Thanks for the rest of the points too - appreciate it is a difficult spot to be in right now! :pray:

Yes, I just am unsure of the implications of either a Yes or No — hopefully neither would be bad options. But did speak with at least one VC who can make a more informed decision and is actively monitoring the voting process. I don’t know if they will choose to vote or not, but there are larger actors able to intervene.

If it simply doesn’t pass due to inadequate participation, there’s nothing wrong with proposing again.

Field Technologies has updated its vote on the Deco proposal for a final time.

New policy: Any proposal that looks like it could place Maker under a new regulator in an OECD or other major market will be opposed unless and until Maker obtains legal opinions that it will NOT likely increase the compliance requirements on DAI or Maker.


Field Technologies voted:

Yes on Recognized Delegate Compensation Trial. If Maker wants delegates to put in time and represent the protocol and not just individual backers, then compensation is a must. This proposal isn’t ideal, but don’t let best be the enemy of good.

No on Raise ESM Threshold and Increase Governance Delay. These should be separated and voted upon again. Field Technologies is in favor of raising the ESM Threshold, but would like to hear more discussion around increasing the delay of the GSM.

Abstain on Clean Money Sentiment. This is a non-binding resolution with no substantive outcomes either way. Consistent with Field Technologies’ policy of Abstaining on greenlight polls — another where the outcome is disconnected from action in practice — Field Technologies has voted to Abstain to avoid signaling approval or disapproval for proposals that have not yet been put before Maker.


Field Technologies is supporting the current executive. Apologies upon the delay, which was due to high gas prices when it was first posted.

1 Like

Field Technologies voted:

Yes on the MOMC rate proposal. Reasonable rate increases to reflect market conditions. Support.

No on Lower PSM vault fees. Detailed explanation can be found here.

Abstain on green lighting MDI as collateral. This is consistent with the Field Technologies policy of abstention on these polls unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.

No on green lighting OHM as collateral. A detailed explanation can be found here. This is a deviation from the standard policy to Abstain on green light polls.


Effective immediately, I am now employed as a governance liaison for GFX Labs .

As such, the Field Technologies, Inc. delegation contract will wind down its activity and should not be expected to regularly vote beyond this week except if needed to pass executive spells or address urgent issues. Field Technologies encourages all of its backers to migrate their MKR to the GFX Labs contract at their leisure.

Even though the participation of my personal company – Field Technologies, Inc. – in MakerDAO is coming to a close, I fully expect a smooth transition to my participation in GFX Labs, and it is not expected to impact the ability to quickly pass executive spells.

The @PaperImperium forum handle will in general no longer be as active, though DMs will be monitored, and I (the individual) will still be available on Twitter and Discord under the PaperImperium handle. Only views and opinions expressed under the forum @GFXlabs handle should be considered the official positions of GFX Labs.

Additional disclosure: Field Technologies, Inc. is now providing consultative services to DeFi Education Fund on an ongoing basis.


Field Technologies supported the current executive. There were no controversial components — raising DC on G-UNI DAI-USDC, wstETH, and Aave D3M, as well as removing DAI from the Pause Proxy to return to the SB.


Hi @PaperImperium, for the sake of delegate tracking, and for calculating compensation amounts for the month of November, could you confirm the date that Field Technologies, Inc. is ceasing to act as a Recognised Delegate?

Hey, do we need some extra language in MIP61 about migrating from one delegate address to another? My sense is that migration should be as frictionless as possible. That is, compensation should be calculated based on the sum of the MKR weight of the two delegate addresses. Maybe GovAlpha should only take the sum for a specified amount of time to encourage MKR to migrate to the new delegate contract.

1 Like

Effective immediately. The Field Technologies, Inc. contract should not be expected to vote in further polls, and only in an emergency basis for executives. You may move it to Shadow Delegate status at the discretion of GovAlpha.