Schuppi Delegate Platform

Key Info

Name: Tim Schuppener
Forum: @ultraschuppi
Twitter: @schuppi
Discord: schuppi#6905
Email: [email protected]
Delegate Address: delegatecontract.mkr.schuppi.eth0xb21e535Fb349E4eF0520318aCFe589E174B0126b
Meet Your Delegate Video: Meet Your Delegate | Ep. 5 Ft. UltraSchuppi - YouTube

Core Values

If I could just write a nice write up about Core Values and Principles and what not, that would be great - right?

Instead I will just give you some data on how I have voted.

I am running one of the older shadow delegate contracts, you can see my voting behaviour here. My voting behaviour since 2019-11 can be seen here. Maybe I can find my old voting contract for the time before but I doubt this is of any interest.

Just a couple of points I explicitly want to point out:

Growth over Profit

Despite already being considered as a blue chip in the DeFi-ecosystem, I believe we are still super early in the game and we should absolutely focus on growing our footprint instead of being profitable.

I have been advocating for increasing the Surplus Buffer multiple times (here, here, here and here) and I still think we should refrain from burning MKR right now and rather spend money on growing.


We are far away from being decentralized. That’s okay. Just to give you some idea how I feel where we should go to

  • Multiple Core Units caring about the same domain is desirable. Just having one Growth CU is not where we should be on the long run, same for CUs doing engineering (we are a lot better already here, but also far from perfect)
  • We need a lot more collateral types. We already overdid this with crypoassets (onboarded collateral which was just not worth the effort/cost), but I think there are a lot of RWA we can onboard on the on the long run
  • There has been some talking about SEC-compliance and other US-focused regulatory stuff. I am totally not saying that is bad, but I am missing the notion of Maker being a trans-national thing. Being a European citizen, I might add a bit of geo-decentralization to the list of recognized delegates.
  • Delegation helped us a lot on letting execs pass. But it also revealed that a single delegate/whale can flip any vote. We need more voter participation and for that most probably a lot more delegates to make this happen.


I am usually trusting in people, and not caring a lot about KPIs. I know that this is bad, but it worked well enough for me. I think we do need some standardized way on how we go with accounting, budgets and all of that. Probably not urgent now, but if we don’t prepare it will be too late at some point and everything will be a total mess. We already see traces here.

About myself

I already gave some background about myself in the Facilitator Onboarding post for the failed MakerLabs Core Unit. Some additional points relevant here

  • I am not a professional delegate, I am just someone who has been voted for >2 years in every single poll and exec and will continue doing that. I am not doing this here for the money, I do it because I believe in this project and think that participating in governance with your MKR is not optional. I am voting anyway and the additional effort of explaining my reasons is not that much.
  • I hope we are going to see a lot more professional delegates mid-term (and for that a competitive compensation is most probably needed), but in the current situation I want to encourage amateurs like me to step up and offer their service.
  • It is not only Defi and Maker being early, it is also delegation. I am a bit surprised and disappointed that we ran into the topic of “how much do we need to pay our delegates” just weeks after delegation has started. I put a big NO on the currently running SR for increasing the max Delegate Compensation.
  • While the drunk whale was still around, I was already poking him every week giving him an update on the current polls, helping on his decision making and luring him into helping to pass the exec. By that time he was already asking for being able to just delegate his voting power. At this time the idea was born to do that myself. I ditched it in favor of trying the MakerLabs path - so this is totally not an idea that came up recently.

As a rule of thumb: I will vote in favor for every exec that gets promoted on chain by the Governance Facilitators that does not feel dangerous to the protocol even if that exec contains changes that I voted against in the previous onchain poll. If you don’t want your MKR to be used for polls but want to help getting execs done asap, you can delegate to my 2nd delegate contract which I will use only for supporting execs and not for voting on polls.

Conflicts of Interest

I hold a bit of YFI, AAVE, COMP, ENS but not to the same degree I hold MKR. Aside from being a ENS-Delegate, I am currently not participating in any other DAO and do not plan to do that.

I have read and agree to the Delegate Code of Conduct.

Waiver of liability

By delegating to me, you acknowledge and agree that I participate on a best efforts basis and will not be liable for any form of damages related to my participation in the Maker Protocol or MakerDAO.


  • 2021-11-07T23:00:00Z: added ENS-Delegation to conflicts of Interest
  • 2021-12-12T23:00:00Z: changed ENS name for delegate contract, added twitter, removed RocketChat, added Meet your delegate-link

This is an interesting idea which allows for different styles and preferences of delegation - I wonder if there are other ways that we will see votes broken down and how that will inform delegation and voting processes in the future.

Thanks for the write up, behind the scenes activity, and for your consistent voting habit :grinning:


Hell yeah Schuppi, glad you finally put your hat into the ring. We’re lucky to have you stick around after your ambitious team didn’t resubmit. :frowning:

I’m unsure we even have that dialed down at the moment, but I would say your professionalism ranks quite high.

:eyes: always the innovator.


Active Polls

Ending 2021-11-03T23:00:00Z

Lower PSM Vault Fees (thread)

voted Yes

  • of course it feels a bit scary as this looks like we expose us even more to USDC related risk
  • but we are already in a fatal state on that anyway
  • missing out on fees is not really relevant (also would not prevent anything an USDC-DAI exit if USDC looses peg)
  • i think @NikKunkel sums it up pretty good

Parameter Changes Proposal - MakerDAO Open Market Committee - November 1, 2021 (thread)

voted Yes

makes sense to me. I don’t expect we will suffer by users turning away from our product by those changes.

Ending 2021-11-14T23:00:00Z

Community Greenlight Poll - OHM (Olympus DAO) - November 1, 2021 (thread)

not voted yet, currently tend towards No. The thread is awful.

Community Greenlight Poll - MDI (MD Irradiance LLC) - November 1, 2021 (thread)

not voted yet, currently tend towards Yes.


  • expanded a bit on why I voted in favour for the MOMC proposal

Supported this week’s executive - has never been that expensive before…

1 Like

made a small edit: I will be a ENS DAO Delegate - happy to get ENS delegation from everyone claiming their ENS airdrop


Active Polls

Ending 2021-11-10T23:00:00Z

Add WBTC-B as a new Vault Type (thread)

voted Yes

This is a very special moment for me as the preceding Signal Request was posted by me almost 11 months ago. Aside from that, ETH-B has shown that low-LR vaults provide a good income and are attracting different customers. Nice to see we finally make a move into this direction with WBTC as well.

GUNIV3DAIUSDC-A Parameter Adjustments (thread)

voted Yes

Allowing more leverage is good, even if it comes with a lower SF. But I think we should make stablecoin<->DAI-conversation is cheap as possible anyway (remember: we are not making any more money with the PSMs starting tomorrow). I have some doubts the new DC will even get maxed out, but those changes make sense to me.

NS-DROP Covenant Modification (thread)

voted Abstain

We are in a bit of turmoil in the RWA area right now. As the whole domain is clearly outside of my expertise a PPG around this area would certainly help me a lot on making decisions. Reading the thread, there is a lot of topics outside of the distinct topic the Signal Request. I hope we get this ship back into safe waters soon.

Recognised Delegate Compensation Increase (thread)

voted Abstain

As stated in my Meet your Delegate call I think delegates should not decide on their compensation on their own. I believe MIP61 is a step into the right direction - using a shortcut for trying it out for 3 months is not offbeat, but I would like to lay this into the hands of non-delegate voters to decide if we should go this path or not. If this poll is not passing onchain, it will not change anything for me personally.

Increase the WSTETH-A Debt Ceiling (thread)

voted Yes

WSTEth as a collateral has been a nice addition to our portfolio, seeing that it got adopted by customers so quickly is good to see. We need to keep up with the demand (and it provides some solid income as well).

DIRECT-AAVEV2-DAI Parameter Adjustments (thread)

voted Yes

Being an impatient person, I cannot wait for the moment where we can do a strong promise on DAI-Borrowers at AAVE to be sure the rates are safu. Increasing the line is a first good step into this direction.

The D3M is one of the most important things we have shipped this year which is the reason I am holding this wonderful NFT from @aburban90


Community Greenlight Poll - MDI (MD Irradiance LLC) (thread)

voted Abstain

Like most of the topics around collateral onboarding in general and RWA specially I just don’t feel informed enough to make a call here. In a more general sense, I guess it makes a lot more sense to first to some eval around efforts needed, profitability, risk by smart people before bringing the topic to MKR holders to decide.

Community Greenlight Poll - OHM (Olympus DAO) (thread)

voted No

Same as with MDI, but adding here: @MakerMan and @PaperImperium made some convincing comments why this probably not a good idea to have in the first place (here and here)


I supported this weeks executive by exploiting the low gas prices we had tonight :wink:

I have been in favour of the three preceding polls as well (this, this and this), so there is really nothing I can add here.

1 Like

Active Polls

Ending 2021-11-17T23:00:00Z

Local Liquidation Limit Adjustments for ETH-A, ETH-B, ETH-C, WBTC-A and WSTETH-A (thread)

voted Yes

Following the suggestions by @Risk-Core-Unit here in order to increase the throughput in liquidations on those ilks. Being able to have smoothly running liquidations is going to be really important on the next market downturn.

Rates Proposal (thread)

votes Yes

Despite appetite for DAI-from-WBTC has cooled down a lot in the last week (but not special compared to other ilks), I still think it is reasonable to increase the rates here. The new rates are matching more to the risks we have added by the increased debt-exposure.

Offboard the AAVE-A Vault Type + Offboard the BAL-A Vault Type + Offboard the COMP-A Vault Type (thread)

voted Yes

It is about time to remove vault-types that haven’t seen a reasonable adoption. This is getting even more important by the time we need to fund the operational costs for oracles (related), but it is also a matter of focus.

I am wondering if Matic adoption will pick up.

Change of Covenants for P1-DROP (Peoples Company Series 1) (thread)

voted Yes

Despite still being in turmoil mode on RWA I don’t think we should use every opportunity to block making progress. The content of this change is harmless, cannot see how this request needs to get turned down.


Active Polls

Ending 2021-11-21T23:00:00Z

Ratification Poll for Modify Core Unit Budget, RWF-001 (MIP40c3-SP39) (thread)

voted Yes

This is just an unmodified renewal of the currently running budget for the RWF Core Unit. The team has delivered in 2021 and I am very much looking forward to 2022.

Ratification Poll for Real-World Finance Core Unit MKR Compensation, RWF-001 (thread)

voted Yes

A vesting plan for one of the oldest Core Units was overdue. The proposal is a reasonable vesting plan, no objections.

Ratification Poll for Modify Core Unit Budget, MKT-001 (MIP40c3-SP33) (thread)

voted Yes

Like almost all Core Units - this team is under budget. It got some headwinds in the last MIP cycle. Let’s move on.

Ratification Poll for Modify Core Unit Budget, COM-001 (MIP40c3-SP40) (thread)

voted Yes

Essentially a renewal of the currently running budget. No surprises.

I think we should get a standardized and mandatory system in place (reference) - this would not only help the teams to focus on their core competencies but also increase visibility for all stakeholders.

Ratification Poll for Supplement to Collateral Onboarding Application (MIP6c3-SP1) (thread)

votes Yes

The collateral onboarding process is not ideal in general, but it is great that we get something new for RWA now. I expect more iterations on it in the future, but this is a good start for sure.

Ratification Poll for Adding Sidestream Auction Services Core Unit, SAS-001 (thread)

voted Yes

This Core Unit has a meaningful mission and a capable team for executing it. The only thing that I do not like is the retroactive vesting - I know this is not the first time and @wouter made some good points why we should do that. There need to be good reasons when this is applied but my subjective assessment is aligned with the procedure here.

Ratification Poll for the Immunefi Security Core Unit (IS-001) (thread)

voted Yes

A great addition to our existing Core Unit stack and I am really happy to have @psychonaut as Deputy Facilitator in here as well.

Ratification Poll for Adding the Deco Fixed Rate Core Unit (DECO-001) (thread)

voted Yes

This Core Unit application has been the cause of some sleepless nights and making a decision on it has been the hardest tasks as a new delegate so far. I have been talking with a lot of people from the community, from existing Core Units and from the Deco team.

The discussions, opinions and assessments on this application are wide-ranging and frankly speaking: If I would be just a casual voter, I would probably just abstain.

I don’t want to go too much into details, but highlight just two points that bring me to the conclusion to support this:

  • We are onboarding a really skilled team with a unique background - this is a great opportunity for us to evolve. It is not only about the skills they have but also about the nice side effect of unlocking the Project Sandbox (will link to the summary of @SES-Core-Unit once it is live)
  • Yes, there are uncertainties about the legal and regulatory implications - but again: we are not modifying the protocol here - we just onboard a great team that will take care of dealing with this as well. This is a unique opportunity - you might think of a high-risk high-reward situation - and we should not miss it.

I supported today’s executive - increasing the Stability Fee for WBTC-A and onboarding WBTC-B according to the parameters suggested by @Risk-Core-Unit and MOMC, adjusting the Liquidation Limits for ETH-A, ETH-B, ETH-C, WBTC-A, WSTETH-A, offboarding a couple of unused ilks - nothing controversial here.

Let`s get this executed ASAP. The changes on WBTC-A will increase our revenue by >18 MM/y.


Active Polls

Ending 2021-11-24T23:00:00Z

Add a GUSD Peg Stability Module (thread)

voted Yes

I think it is good to have a third PSM in the mix. tin and tout are currently set to zero, so this is not about income. But like the D3M, this is not about revenue, this is about making a strong message to the userbase. A GUSD-PSM will support this.

Add WBTC-C as a new Vault Type (thread)

voted Yes

ETH-C has been a nice addition to our portfolio, I expect the same to happen with WBTC-C as well. I believe the trade-off of having fewer income by a lower Stability Fee is getting to get offset by having a lower risk on our side in case of a large market downturn and we are potentially also attracting different and more users to this product.

Increase the Aave D3M Maximum Debt Ceiling (thread)

voted Yes

I would like to see the D3M in a position to enforce a maximum variable borrow rate as soon as possible. For that, we will need a lot higher DC than suggested with this poll. However I am fully trusting @Derek and his team to go with the appropriate speed.

Increase the System Surplus Buffer (thread)


  • Option 3: Increase the System Surplus Buffer from 60 million DAI to 90 million DAI, with a gradual increase of 1 million DAI per week.
  • Option 4: Increase the System Surplus Buffer from 60 million DAI to 130 million DAI, with a gradual increase of 1 million DAI per week.
  • Option 1: Increase the System Surplus Buffer from 60 million DAI to 90 million DAI, with a gradual increase of 0.67 million DAI per week.
  • Option 2: Increase the System Surplus Buffer from 60 million DAI to 130 million DAI, with a gradual increase of 0.67 million DAI per week.

My primary goal here is to get the SB increased as quick as possible. Going with the 1 MM/week option leaves more than 60% of the profit for MKR burning. Having a higher SB will not only protect us better in case of a crash, but will also allow us to do more experiments (e.g. with RWAs and higher DCs on them).

You may find it strange that I favour the 90 MM option over the 130 MM options - I simply think that we will need to revisit our strategy around increasing the Surplus Buffer short term anyway, so i would rather make a commitment on a shorter timespan.

There were some concerns about the flap-Keeper ecosystem not being in a good shape, but haven’t seen a single auction since we restarted burning that was not running good. It does not take much to keep it alive, we can be safer by just continously burning a bit - but even some months of not burning has not hurt the ecosystem much.

Ending 2021-11-28T23:00:00Z

Community Greenlight Poll - SB-frOGI (SolidBlock Red Frog Digital Coin) (thread)

voted Abstain

I honestly have no opinion here, and I am looking forward to have a better greenlight procedure for RWA in the future as outlined in here.

Community Greenlight Poll - MONETALIS (Monetalis Wholesale SME Green Growth Lending) (thread)

voted Yes

Looks like a nice opportunity to get more DAI from RWA and also fits nicely to the Green Money idea.


Supported new executive. New teams, new vault types, more headroom for D3M - perfect next step for MakerDao. Let’s move!


Active Polls

Ending 2021-12-01T23:00:00Z

Increase the Dust Parameter for Most Vault Types (thread) and Increase the Dust Parameter for ETH-B Vault Type (thread)

voted Yes

Few remember the times we had a dust of 20 DAI. I am really sad we need to make these adjustments, but they are necessary given the current gas-prices. We need to be prepared for liquidating vaults, it is just not avoidable to make these changes.

I hope we can be more open once we allow minting on L2s.

Use the MakerDAO Treasury to Fund MKR Expenses (thread)

voted Yes

As long as we have MKR in our treasury it just does not make sense to mint some for MKR vesting. Even if we cannot agree on burning some of it or putting it to work, we have this option to use it.

Add GUNIV3DAIUSDC2-A as a new Vault Type (thread)

voted Yes

The proposed stability fees are unlikely going to attract users of this vault-type, but we can adjust them later. The first version of integrating the GUNI-product into our stack was already a huge success though not in terms of revenue. I hope we can tweak the parameters, as this is a nice way helping to keep the peg.

One Time Payment to the GovComms CU to Deal with Budget Issues (thread)

voted Yes

Another good example why we would be better off with an accounting CU keeping track of those things. But You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs - let’s move on.

Parameter Changes Proposal - MakerDAO Open Market Committee (thead)

voted Yes

The proposed changes by MOMC are reasonable - both in terms of balancing growth and profit, but also in terms of trying to break even vault-types with their oracle costs.

I would like to see a lower bar and higher debt-ceiling for D3M mid-term so we can grow the footprint of DAI in DeFi and also making some profit out of it.

Add CurveLP-stETH-ETH as a new Vault Type (thread)

voted Yes

I am really happy to see another staked ETH product appear in our portfolio. Let’s hope it gets enough traction for covering the oracle costs, but you have to spend money to make money.


Active Polls

Ending 2021-12-08T23:00:00Z

Adjust wstETH-A System Parameters (thread)

voted Yes

Just 4 weeks ago we increased the DC to 50 MM and it is really nice to see

If all new vault-types would work this way we wouldn’t need to talk about offboarding that often :wink:

I have been supporting the last increase and of course also support this increase of the Debt Ceiling.

Adjust MATIC-A System Parameters (thread)

voted Yes

Really happy to see that MATIC-A finally gets some traction. I guess we will no longer need to talk about offboarding this vault-types if the proposed line will be utilized. Thanks @Risk-Core-Unit for taking the initiative. Lowering the gap also fits to the proposal by MOMC (ratified onchain here).

Ending 2021-12-19T23:00:00Z

Community Greenlight Poll - G-UNIv3-DAIUSDP (Gelato UniswapV3 DAI-USDP LP Token) (thread)

voted Yes

This is a similar application to GUNIV3DAIUSDC1 but based on USDP (PAX). The situation is almost the same - we also have a PSM for it which is already heavily used. I have some doubts that this will really get used as both 0.01% and 0.05% have insignificant volume right now - but in the end this is just a green light poll and the smart people from our Core Units will have some deeper look at it before this eventually goes into the protocol.

If this gets a positive attestation by our Core Units I think it does make sense to have it as it is a valuable addition the PSM diversifying our risk. My main concern right now is about oracle costs and projected utilization.


I supported the current executive containing some parameter changes, dust adjustments and delegate compensations - very grateful to be part of this list but also sad @MakerMan suffered from the cut-off. Note that there is currently a Signal Request running on this topic - I hope we can retroactively fix this glitch.


I supported the current executive containing some of the changes of the last two weeks:


x-posting for visibility: I will start doing weekly Office Hours and am thinking about sharing more stuff with the community. Please chime in!

1 Like

Active Polls

Ending 2021-12-15T23:00:00Z

DAI Direct Deposit Module (D3M) Debt Ceiling Targeting and DAI Direct Deposit Module (D3M) Net Rates Spread (thread)


  • yes on the Net Rates Spread poll
  • DC-target poll:
    • first option: 30% of Real DAI Supply on Aave
    • second option: 25% of Real DAI Supply on Aave

I summarized my opinion here - personally I would love to see an even lower spread to make the variable borrowing rate on Aave more appealing for end-users. With a bar of 3.75% we are most probably not coming anywhere near the DC-target. Nevertheless, I want us to be prepared for sudden spikes in DAI borrowing at Aave so we can provide help on stable variable borrowing rates. That’s why I prefer the highest option on the DC-target.

Recognised Delegate Compensation Trial Performance Modifier (thread)

votes Yes

Unlike the previous polls related to delegate compensation I do not Abstain but instead support this. The current implementation is a bit too harsh on the cut-off, which led to undesirable effects for @MakerMan in the last months. This is a step in the right direction.

Ending 2021-12-19T23:00:00Z

Community Greenlight Poll - aUST (Anchor TerraUSD) (thread)

voted No

@ElProgreso did some research on this token, and also @monet-supply from the Risk team made a comment on it. I am agreeing to both assessments and therefor do not support moving forward with this application.


Active Polls

Ending 2022-01-12T23:00:00Z

Prioritize Onboarding a Compound DAI Direct Deposit Module (D3M) (thread)

voted Yes

We have barely seen a fully exhausted AAVE-D3M yet, but I am a huge supporter of this tool to provide low and stable borrowing rates on DAI to secondary markets and by that increasing the DAI footprint. Extending this tool to Compound is a logical next step.

Raise the Emergency Shutdown Module (ESM) Threshold (thread)

voted Yes

Most of the MKR is not locked in our voting contract and the current ESM Threshold is just barely above the liquidity in Aave, Sushi, UniV2 combined. It should be a lot more difficult for a bad actor to shut down the protocol. Raising the threshold to 100k is a step in the right direction.

Prioritize DAI Direct Deposit Module (D3M) for Maple Finance (thread)

voted Yes

Depending on further investigations and details provided by @Growth-Core-Unit and @Real-World-Finance this could evolve in a great way of providing DAI to the markets. Note we are not voting here on any parameters yet, this is just to test the water if the community is supporting this initiative.

Increase the Dust Parameter for Select LP Token Vaults (thread)

voted Yes

Increasing the dust is always a sad move at it excludes even more users from the protocol. But given the current gas-prices, it is also not economically sound for participants to join the game without being able to provide the necessary amount of collateral anyway. Still hoping for L2 :wink:

Proposal - Recover DAI Locked in Optimism Escrow (thread)

voted Abstain

I don’t like us to perform a special treatment just because the victim is well connected and the amount of DAI is especially huge. We need to set up a process for those cases, also taking the costs for recovery into account. This should really not be handled on individual cases. Some kind of seed-funding of a MIP taking care of those situations would be a nice compensation in this case.

On the other hand: it would not be reasonable to ask the victim to wait some months until a MIP is done and ratified, and this is about 10 MM DAI not usable on Optimism.

1 Like