Parameter Proposal Group - MakerDAO Open Market Committee

Yeah we probably rushed this last one too much. This was in response to us moving too slow last time. We probably need more of a middle ground. I think that’s a separate issue from the observer though.

The MOMC is already filled with mandated actors and community members, so I don’t see what adding one more community member “to observe” will achieve. I can assure you it’s pretty mundane. We look at data and set rates based on market competition / risk premiums.

2 Likes

Clearly not. Recommending swinging Maker to an operating loss in order to target ~20% of our DAI supply for growth does not strike me as mundane. There’s not much more exciting than recommendations that make or break the financial security of our protocol. Especially when I worry there’s not a clear understanding of how DAI is currently generated, where our profits come from, and why we are differentiated from the likes of Aave and Compound.

To be clear, I am not recommending myself as an observer. But I can think of little harm by adding an extra set of risk-conscious eyes like @williamr or any number of others. Surely listening in would not increase risks related to this PPG’s recommendations?

1 Like

It sounds like you just have a different opinion on how to set rates. We mostly stick to the competitive rates with some small subjective discussion about the precise number. If you don’t like how our group operates feel free to form your own.

Thank you for the endorsement. I’ll consider it.

1 Like

All documents are shared (the last publication link to the wrong document and no one complained so that show how much people are using the information).

The group is already 7 people from the DAO. How adding 2 more that need to remain quiet will change anything? This group is self-organizing and seems quite effective (the last poll passed with 99.98% in favor and people want faster decision). @williamr is in NZ so the current meeting time will be in the middle of the night for him.

@PaperImperium can you please frame what the problem really is and what you really try to achieve because I don’t get it.

If you are not happy with it you can always create another PPG, or emit Signal Requests. If you lack an understanding of how DAI is generated, you can work in this area.

Attempting to make committees as large as possible is also in the Simple Sabotage Field Manual. Let’s avoid sabotaging ourselves.

4 Likes

Thank you. This seems to be a popular idea.

Paper what would you have recommended? To keep rates steady?

I mean as I said on another post–if we worked at a Bank and decided to cut revenues by double digit percentage points–yea, I would probably be out of job by Monday morning.

I guess maybe MakerDAO should put it’s foot down. If ETH heads enjoy paying high TX cost, are okay being front-run (like myself :slight_smile: ) then they/we should also feel privilege to mint DAI and Pay higher Stability Fees. Its kind of like a luxury brand Louis Vuitton dropping prices because Walmart decided to drop theirs. Okay maybe a bad example, but you get my drift…

1 Like

Hi everybody,

may I kindly suggest to move debates on rate changes proposals out of this thread and into the corresponding parameter proposal post? makes it a lot easier for historians to dig into early-cryptoeconomic days in a couple of (checks notes…) months?, idk - whatever.

so,

  • the most recent proposal is to be found here
  • older ones are to be found here
  • if you want to argue about the PPG proposal process being too slow go over here
  • if you think things move to fast, look here

so we can keep this thread for updates on the MOMC

thanks

4 Likes

I’m not sure if I’d recommend holding them steady.

But I would not have recommended a rate cut that pushes us to the point of unprofitability simply to target ~20% of DAI source. I am staggered at the unfamiliarity with our own user base. The PSM accounts for ~54% of our DAI, and ~30% comes from our five largest users. Of what remains, most is not from small yield farmers.

We serve large DAI users, and we are where an institution can generate DAI without moving rates against themselves by their transaction size. We are not in the commodity lending business.

Additionally, these cuts are in the face of rising revenue and an all-time high of supply, with the PSM’s growth stalling. Even if you believed that unwinding billions in interest-free float that we can deploy for yield is a good goal, the trends are already more favorable.

So the goal is to target a minority of our current usage base by driving profits out of our own system in order to compete with protocols that must pay their users in order to compete with us? It’s madness.

And then to push such a drastic change on-chain without even waiting for input from the DAO community? Who is this self-appointed group who feels their opinions are so important and so well-considered that they do not require even a day’s discussion? Why are their opinions on whether Maker should even make or lose money more important than the decentralized autonomous organization they purport to serve?

Though it risks my own reputation to do so, I would be negligent to not point out that this small group of individuals – meeting behind closed doors, refusing observers, and pushing extremist policies into a vote without feedback as required by their own rules – is acting exactly like the centralized, power-hoarding financial system that everyone here seeks to escape.

As an archaeologist, let me assuage that fear, because context matters. Thank you for posting the links for future generations to get up to speed, though!

the list of people in the MOMC is just at the beginning of this post.

I know, reading is for suckers - but please:

pathetic!

I have seen what happened to the second PPG, I would like to avoid to see something like this a second time.

no. i am serious. go somewhere else, or do another post, or a campaign why people should not even consider the proposals by the MOMC. or open up a new PPG. i seriously do not care

this thread is about updates on

  • who is in the PPG
  • which parameters are covered
  • are there any new conflicts of interest
  • so basically facts and not opinions

but clearly not for this.

2 Likes

I think that is definitely not a bad example. Product differentiation is absolutely crucial. Maker should have a clear idea of its target market and take decisions accordingly.

2 Likes

@ultraschuppi Thanks for your clarification. In case you do decide to open it, let me know. I thought of observation as my interest is scientific, hence why in line with the fact-driven goal of the committee. I’ve made and maintain my Disclosures. My role is not that of a herald or of getting into wasteful debates. If anything, I am only interested in methodology and mathematics.

For efficiency, I understand if the committee is full however.

3 Likes

Agree, lets try to keep discussion occurring in the relevant thread. I’ve closed this one temporarily to encourage discussion to move elsewhere, it’ll open again next week.

3 Likes

This topic was automatically opened after 4 days.

Following the Signal Request about the Aave D3M Target Borrow Rate we decided to propose changes on this parameter in the future.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.