It seems this approach is a governance-centric approach, designed from a technical perspective, which was the original role of EIP/MIP. Credit to Mr. St.Louis here, a very successful job getting it to this point. @charlesstlouis
Yet, Maker still lacks the framework and operational skeleton to bootstrap daily operations in a substantive way. Right now you have unpaid contributors working for a “de-cent” organization that makes profit—not good or decent.
The DAO needs to bring on a single project team under a substantial proposal to deliver an operational skeleton akin to the initial MIPS skeleton. This is the way to produce the work and constrain paths and research for Maker governance to vote on (similar to collateral on-boarding, but much, much more work).
Pro-bono work will not work to get Maker over the hump and will leave it in a graveyard.
Clear mutual incentives, win-win, works (e.g. RWA and Rabinowitz success) . These iterative improvements (domain team to core unit) represent the worst part of decentralization and government: a glacial pace that loses pace with innovation through a prohibitive and restrictive bureaucracy. LFW is right in suggesting that iterative improvements allow for easy transition, they also allow for minimum incremental novelty–the death of innovation. It should not be understated, a glacial pace allows for and affords protection. A blanket approach of slow motion is not advantageous. This risk reward does not need to be the same in each domain (risk, technical protocol, business ops).
True decentralization isn’t the worst features of democracy concentrated, but the best features of centralization, de-risked. To date, you have fully centralized de-centralized decision making in every aspect, with burdensome documentation, not easily data, and you are still relying on trust (the opposite goal of decentralization and redundancy). It is better to assign responsibility, and align incentives so trust is not an issue. Trusting people with the expertise to execute and scoping which decisions are made at which level, is the key to empowering management and unlocking productivity. The Risk team seems to do this well and has been empowered since the early days to do so.
In order to get a real operational skeleton in place, you need to delegate the project, fund it, and then run the project as it were an MIP with comment periods, then have governance vote on the concrete and proposed findings. Note here again how effective Rabinowitz was in delivering real results.
If this is something the community and DAO is interested, delivering on operational promise and keeping the DAO competitive… let me know.
-Dao abides in non-action,
Yet nothing is left undone.-