Rune Christensen presents The Decentralized Community & The Decentralized Workforce

MakerDAO founder Rune Christensen presented his thoughts about Maker governance after the Governance and Risk call from October 21, 2021.

The Case for Clean Money

Clean Money Sentiment Polling


Semi-Transcribed Summary


  • 01:17: Introduction
  • 02:02: Where We Are Today
  • 08:08: David Vs. Goliath
  • 10:34: Empower the Community
  • 14:47: Bureaucratic Risk Factors
  • 17:31: Structure Workforce for Verifiable Value Creation
  • 24:42: The 4 Branches of Power
  • 29:17: Meta-governance Infrastructure
  • 31:41: Sagittarius Engine
  • 33:47: Cartels and Voter Committees
  • 35:27: Workforce Expansion
  • 38:57: Team Led Discussion



Rune Christensen


  • I call this the Decentralized Community and the Decentralized Workforce. The basic idea is to think about governance in a more Byzantine, adversarial, and game-theoretic way. In doing so, we can recognize the different incentives that exist, the different roles that arise, and their advantages in efficient creation.

Slide 1


Slide 2


Slide 3


Slide 4


Slide 5


Slide 6


Slide 7


Slide 8


Slide 9


Slide 10


Team-led Dicussion


  • Unknown Speaker: I have no interest in being a facilitator because my bank account is frozen due to paying my lawyers in the Cayman Islands. The only reason to be a facilitator is that it helps build assets. Financial advisory is also important for Maker. It would be interesting to help because I own a lot of MakerDAO, but I usually do not press anyone else but me. For me, it is just a simple means to work from Ecuador.


  • Rune Christensen: We should continue the chat. The best way to think about it is an MKR first. Then, think about others and their incentives. In the end, even if you can trust yourself or someone else, the only thing you can consider systematically reliable are people’s incentives.


  • Sebastien Derivaux: That is why I put in another important comment. We should not create a complex structure because that will never work. We should have a small and strong structure that aligns everyone. If there is a strong structure, no matter the incentives, this structure will always win. But you need to remain small, for example, having only 50 people working for MakerDAO. Your proposal is of the opposite, creating a large and complex structure. Both could work, there are not the same.
    • Rune Christensen: You want a simple structure, so there are little things that can keep you in check. You also want a few positions because you already have a position. But why is there still a fundamental disconnect between MKR holders and the workforce? This disconnect is essential to understanding how to structure the project. Those might be great points, but they need to consider from the perspective of MKR holders. What do they want, and what benefits them? There has been much discussion about this in the forum, and it will carry out into Discord. Now everyone is emotionally prepared. It will be a chaotic time as we figure out who we are and our restructuring process.


  • MakerMan: Interesting presentation, Ruth. Before we check out, may I comment? From the discussion, I am hearing that you want a set of simple rules that can lead to complexity while taking into account transparency and accountability through a decentralized measure. I have a question for you. How do you deal with Maker’s tokenomics? 80% of the Maker, which may be 50 people, is held by those 50 people who probably are not doing the lion’s share of the work. I can safely say that 90% of the people are doing the lion’s share of the work while the 50 people get the returns. And so, this becomes a general problem that we see in the regular corporate world. You are getting a risk-reward for work early. And you have no natural way to compensate later while trying to do this all in this decentralized crypto space.
  • There is an answer to it. My work rewards model, which includes tokenomics, governance, accountability, and reasonably simple rules, is dynamic enough to present essentially all the desired outcomes, including what centralized finance has done for hundreds of years. It offers new opportunities for communities to tailor the model to work for them, which complete transparent accountability. This allows people to set their rates and define the work they want to submit while allowing the community to grade it using a staking model. There are lots of different approaches that crypto can give to solve this problem. The problem is coming up with a simple codable model that can achieve the goals you want. Once people fall into it, everything they want comes out of it naturally. Then, you can get growth, complexity, transparency, and accountability naturally from a simple model.
  • We should talk at some point about my work rewards. Every DAO I know is hunting for a model for doing this so that the first 10% of the people who do the first two years of work do not get 90% of the rewards for perpetuity down the road. That is the real issue that is trying to be solved here. And to do that in a way that’s equitable, fair, decentralized, and consistently accounts for the value. It is a tough question. I spent 30 years of my life donating time to co-ops, intentional communities, Maker, and DAOs, trying to hit upon an answer. There is a two-pronged approach one; first, defining what value is, and second, defining its account.


  • Rune Christensen: What you mentioned sounds aligned with how I view it and how it stitches everything together. I am very excited to see that in the forum. It is going to be a great, more in-depth discussion. Right now, let me click the stop recording.


  • Artem Gordon produced this summary.
  • Larry Wu produced this summary.
  • Everyone who spoke and presented on the call, listed in the headers.​

Very happy I listened to the recording of this one. Not one to miss.


“You want a simple structure, so there are little things that can keep you in check. You also want a few positions because you already have a position.” - @rune

I’m heading toward the exit and I still want a simple structure. Franco Nevada earns $300M/year just with 42 employees. Renaissance Technologies manages $165B with 310 people. Those are both great businesses.

The core unit facilitator didn’t care about the headcount. The MKR holder does.