RWA assessment sections - poll results

Thank you to all those that took the time to participate in our survey about RWF assessment sections. We are eager to keep improving and providing the most value to the community.

This poll was intended as a way to capture the community’s thoughts on what sections are most or least useful in our analysis, measured as:

  • I’d like more focus on
  • I’d like less focus on
  • I sit on the fence :slight_smile:


For the purposes of this survey the team is interpreting “more of” vs “less of” results in terms of greater detail wanted vs more conciseness in a section of our due diligence.

Globally response cross sections remains positive but has room for improvement (+ 60% of votes “more of”)


  • Community clearly wishes greater focus on 5 sections of assessment (+ 2/3 of voters)
    • Exec Summary, AO analysis, Risk levels, Lend process
  • Four sections of assessment don’t seem to have greater appeal, given either neutral or negative view by respondents (+1/2 of voters)
  • A clear winner the community wants greater focus is on “Executive Summaries” for RWA assessments

Unfortunately, given little extra qualitative data to assess poll results, we cannot interpret them much further. But we’re open to feedback anytime.

Last, we have taken your feedback and reworked our due diligence templates and documentation. We are sharpening our pencils to deliver some nice Exec Summaries and improved assessments ;).

Thanks all

The RWF team:


I can share a bit regarding how I voted, as I think it’s pretty reflective of the overall distribution…

Essentially I always want to see more information about the specific counterparty and the specific deals, and less about the industry/general information that only impacts the deals on a macro level. I feel this way because, if structured correctly, Maker will always have a super-senior position over the Vault owner’s assets (with the Vault owner putting up a significant amount of their own equity), and have the ability to force a speedy re-financing or liquidation. Therefore the macro picture should not dramatically affect the system. I’d really only be concerned about those things if they were to reduce the efficacy of a potential liquidation. As for covenants, structure, and risk, those have the potential to cause catastrophic damage to the system if not correctly scrutinized - so I’d always like to see more analysis done in those areas.

Hope that is helpful!


@g_dip Absolutely. This is precisely the kind of qualitative feedback we’re looking to gather from the community. We expect, on an average basis, this “wisdom of the crowd” to be a good proxy for the way MKR voters reflect about these deals. So, keep giving feedback, we keep improving :wink:

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.