PaperImperium Delegate Platform

So @PaperImperium, @GFXlabs, @LongForWisdom and @prose11 can confirm/correct this but my understanding is as follows:

Canonically, the entity known as Field Technologies, Inc. is no longer acting as a Recognised Delegate.

The individual, PaperImperium, worked for Field Technologies, Inc. and is now working for GFXlabs but the GFXlabs contract going live constitutes the genesis of a new Recognised Delegate rather than a migration, hence the requirement for a new Meet Your Delegate call today (and indeed, why we haven’t just changed the name associated with the contract). The two are distinct.

With regards tracking and compensation, the two are separate entities and will be treated as such.


I’m concerned that this creates unnecessary business risk for GFX. Field Tech currently has 8,506.43 MKR delegated and GFX has 5.02 MKR. Also, the Participation and Communication stats are reset to N/A for GFX. Will GovAlpha compensate Field Tech for 17 days of Nov and leave the rest of Nov as essentially uncompensated for GFX? I advocate for at least a 15 day transition allowance where GFX is compensated in line with the stats earned by Field Tech.

Won’t a similar transition occur every year when the delegate contracts expire and MKR needs to be re-delegated to new contracts?

1 Like

I don’t think we should treat MKR delegated to Field Technologies, Inc. as a proxy for delegation to GFXlabs. The two entities have different delegate platforms and we shouldn’t assume we know the intentions of the relevant MKR holders.


No. GFX will receive compensation based on their average delegated MKR over the rest of the month. If tomorrow an MKR holder delegates them 20k MKR then this will be taken into account.

I don’t think this position is logically inconsistent and it is also fair to the other delegates.

See my comments above. I’m not sure this is fair for Maker Governance or for other Recognised Delegates. However, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else submitting a proposal for this via a Signal Request.

I’d say it’s a similar situation but not an identical one as in those cases the Delegate Platform will remain the same. It is an interesting point though and should probably be covered in MIP61 for the sake of clarity. I would remind you that the current Compensation plan is a trial and we have time to address this particular scenario before the delegate contracts expire next year.


Voila, [Signal Request] Compensation Bridge for Delegation Contract Migration

1 Like

Legacy communications (these are old votes that were not appropriately communicated and should not be construed as Field Technologies becoming an active voter again)

Field Technologies voted:

Parameter Changes, Core Unit Budget Distribution
Supported this executive. It seeded the DUX CU and included some changes to the PSM tin/tout parameters. It also included some changes in stability fees.

Add WBTC-B as a new Vault Type
Yes. This is similar to the ETH-B vault type, and the rapidly increasing exposure of Maker to WBTC makes it worthwhile to offer different levels of leverage to different users. This should also provide diversification of timing of liquidations in a sudden downturn.

GUNIV3DAIUSDC-A Parameter Adjustments
Yes. Managed prudently, this should provide an alternative “parking spot” for reserves that should be drawn out of the PSM through market forces, and provides a non-zero yield.

NS-DROP Covenant Modification
No. These requests may be reasonable. But increasing exposure or concentration in Centrifuge assets should be on hold until the upgraded legal framework is in place.

Recognised Delegate Compensation Increase
Yes. If Maker wants delegates who are actually informed, it will need to compensate for the immense amount to time spent on communication, education, and investigation.

Increase the WSTETH-A Debt Ceiling
Yes. This is a new collateral type that has been very popular. Deferring to PE and Risk, it seems safe to increase our exposure to this ilk, especially as it carries a higher yield to offset risk above and beyond ETH.

DIRECT-AAVEV2-DAI Parameter Adjustments
Yes. This is the D3M. Managed prudently, this should provide an alternative “parking spot” for reserves that should be drawn out of the PSM through market forces, and provides a non-zero yield.