I supported this weeks executive by exploiting the low gas prices we had tonight
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
A vesting plan for one of the oldest Core Units was overdue. The proposal is a reasonable vesting plan, no objections.
Like almost all Core Units - this team is under budget. It got some headwinds in the last MIP cycle. Let’s move on.
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.
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.
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.
A great addition to our existing Core Unit stack and I am really happy to have @psychonaut as Deputy Facilitator in here as well.
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.
I think it is good to have a third PSM in the mix.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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!
Increase the Dust Parameter for Most Vault Types (thread) and Increase the Dust Parameter for ETH-B Vault Type (thread)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just 4 weeks ago we increased the DC to 50 MM and it is really nice to see
- this new collateral gets picked up by the userbase so quickly, and
- @Protocol-Engineering, @Oracles-Core-Unit and @Risk-Core-Unit proposed these changes well before we hit the limit. Thanks a lot!
If all new vault-types would work this way we wouldn’t need to talk about offboarding that often
I have been supporting the last increase and of course also support this increase of the Debt Ceiling.
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).
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:
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I have doubts this collateral will allow Maker to run a profitable vault-type on this, but since this is a greenlight poll I will just abstain so it get can get evaluated later on.
Being tied to USDT is a big red flag for me. But even ignoring this, I don’t think onboarding this asset will bring enough benefit to justify the risk.
I have doubts this collateral will make sense for us, but after all this is a greenlight poll just to put a priority to it.
I have doubts this collateral will make sense for us, but after all this is a greenlight poll just to put a priority to it.
We still have a good amount of TUSD sitting in the TUSD-A and a PSM would be a nice thing to offload the remains so it would be easily accessible for people who want to swap their DAI to TUSD - but not the other way round.
While I agree with some of the comments that this proposal should be split in two seperate ones I don’t think it will change a lot - MakerDAO will cover both parts and it is correct to do so. There is bigger fish to fry on the oracles side. It was clear that with the carve out of the oracles team the operational gas-costs would still be covered by the foundation and that this will transition later - now it is happening.
@Aes has been working in the DAO for quite some time and the mission of his coreunit is needed. I am confident the team will deliver great results and help us grow. Let’s go!
Great to see we are finally formalizing this procedure, thanks a lot @PaperImperium for driving this initiative.
The Starknet Engineering CU has delivered from the start and I am happy to support the next steps. L2 support for Maker is desperately needed.
Nice to see the newly founded Immunefi CU is starting to get some traction. Let’s hope we will not see the 10 MM reward anytime soon
This is a step into the right direction. We need the keeper ecosystem to grow and this will help to make it happen.
I do agree that there are issues w.r.t. cost VS output and the lack of transparency and OKRs - but the latter is not something unique to this Coreunit.
I think it is premature to cut ties, we aren’t there yet.
I am hoping the RWF-turmoil is now finally settled, best wished for @williamr taking over and a big Thank you to @SebVentures - really happy you found a next place within the DAO to keep contributing!
This is just continuing the current budget. Keep up the good work!
Ratification Poll for Modify Core Unit Budget - Sustainable Ecosystem Scaling (SES-001) (MIP40c3-SP55) (thread)
This is just continuing the current budget. Keep up the good work!
Thanks so much for the feedback!
I’m Scarlet Chen, CEO of Robinland. As you mentioned, we’re in the process of the community greenlight poll about our MIP6 proposal here. We saw that you have some questions/concerns so would like to reach out proactively to see if there’s anything we might be able to answer.
Robinland channels liquidity from Defi lenders like Maker to fund real estate development projects for a better physical world. Our team consists of real estate industry veteran, crypto native coder, and lawyer familiar with the legal process underneath a security token offering (STO, only process the SEC approves of to issue on-chain crypto tokens that represents real world asset). We tokenize real estate debt projects via security token issuance, and pledge the tokens with Maker to access financing. The projects are all first lien projects w/ full recourse rights, from developers w/ A ratings in NYC.
Compared to other proposals (some already approved) on the forum, our advantage is: (1) there is no retail investor involved in any stage, which mitigates compliance risk for Maker (2) there is no utility token or NFT involved in our process, only security tokens, which ensures 100% compliance w/ current SEC rules about securitization (3) we have in-house lawyers familiar w/ the STO process, and our COO has structured Reg D and Reg A fund in her previous career, which are the same underlying process of how we onboard a debt project at Robinland.
As for track record: (1) our COO has been in the real estate industry for 7 years and (2) our lawyer has been in practice for 10 years on the same legal process (3) our real estate projects are supplied by Crowdfunz, a real estate PE w/ 5 years track record, 0 default rate, and 10-20 projects financed every year. This is all reflected in the proposal we put together - We talked to one of the senior members of the governance community, and he said ‘this is far more superior than anything I’ve seen on the forum; lots of concerns have been addressed ex ante, like providing Maker w/ a put option’.
We’ve spent a long time & lots of thoughts putting together the proposal, read most of the proposals on our forum of similar nature, talked to 5+ lawyers about our structure, and also one of the major members of the Maker governance to get feedback. We truly believe that we’re bringing a better alternative to both parties (supply of projects and supply of liquidity) in this ecosystem!
We noticed that a large fraction of the community has voted ‘abstain’, and one delegate voted ‘no’, which is why we’re proactively reaching out. We’re happy to respond to any feedback/criticism the community and/or you might have, as we believe we have the capacity to change our proposal in a way that accommodates Maker’s needs.
My apologies for the intrusion if any! And we’re here to answer any question you might have. Many thanks for your time and we really appreciate it!
I supported last weeks executive containing
returning 10 MM DAI accidentally burned on Optimism
I abstained on the corresponding poll for the reasons layed out here but I am fine with the outcome as it is clearly not dangerous for the protocol to return the DAI.
dustadjustments for uniV2-vaults
I already supported the corresponding poll for the reasons layed out here - changing the
dustis an appropriate reaction to the high gas prices. The amount of capital needed to run this profitable as a vault-holder is already quite high so it will not even lock out a lot of potential users
delegate compensation for december
This is just the continuation of the currently running trial of MIP61
While the proposed changes will most probably decrease the revenue of Maker I think it is a proper response to the overall lower borrow-demand. Especially lowering ETH-A WSTETH-A Stability Fees and increasing our share on AAVE-DAI through the D3M is something I support.
There has been some discussion on the high Debt Ceiling for GUNIV3DAIUSDC2-A (data can be found here, discussion on the chat), but I don’t think we should have an artificially low Debt Ceiling on those GUNI-based-vaults. The market will find an equilibrium on its own.
This brings GUNIV3DAIUSDC2-A to the same level as GUNIV3DAIUSDC1-A - cannot see a reason why we shouldn’t do this.
changed vote to Yes (Greenlight)
After a call with @Scarlet_Chen and reading the post of @LongForWisdom about the intention of MIP6-Greenlight-Polls I changed my vote to support this application. I think this asset is totally worth exploring and there is no reason to stop it right here.
Thanks so much @ultraschuppi ! Will keep working w/ the Maker community & iterate on our application based on the new guidelines just put forth by the RWF core unit here. We really appreciate being given the chance to further engage with Maker and will work towards common interest!
Supported the most recent executive containing
- the latest MOMC parameter proposal
reducing SFs and increasing exposure on Aave-D3M have been supported by me in the onchain poll before already
- decreasing the Liquidation Rate for GUNIV3DAIUSDC2-A to the same level as GUNIV3DAIUSDC1-A - also have been supporting the corresponding onchain poll
On a sidenote: excited how well the recent liquidations went! Let’s keep on burning!
I just supported (within one minute after it hit the voting portal) the newest exec which will
- deactivate the lerp on the Surplus Buffer
- set the Surplus Buffer to 250 MM directly.
This is an out-of-schedule exec that has been set up after some discussions on discord and this urgent signal request
As long as we do not have a good mechanism of burning MKR we should just stop doing it. Happy this topic now gets some attention and I am excited that @hexonaut already has a short-term solution to this problem of inefficient MKR-auctions