[Signal Request] Adjust ETH-A Debt Ceiling

What about including a Poll for “What should the Risk Premium be for ETH-A?”

1 Like

IIRC we outsourced RP/Stability Fee proposals to the risk team

1 Like

Ok so it’s not community driven. Got it.

I think there is now a Rates Working Group that is tasked with making Stability Fee recommendations to governance based on Market rates. I haven’t seen updates from them in a while but I am of the mind that we don’t want to be raising fees much until we have solidly broken through the peg.

usually every beginning of the month there is an update on that - just wait some more days :slight_smile:

Yes, the Rates Working Group is discussing the rates. Last update was 22 days ago but we had a meeting but didn’t change a thing. Community can still suggest or even signal request rates.

Fact is, there is not much to be changed on a week by week because.

Indeed @ultraschuppi Risk Premium are updated on a monthly basis, so you can expect some changes (or not) on Tuesday 8th (we currently meet on the first and third Monday each month).

2 Likes

As I noted in YFI DC increase Signal earlier today, @Risk is preparing table of proposed risk premiums for all vault types, including maximum DC for MIP27. We are planning to release it next week. Such RP&DC table should be updated on monthly basis, which should serve both Rates Working Group as well as DC IAM.

2 Likes

Small update: @Primoz wants to raise the DC to 590 MM (+100 MM) in the upcoming executive vote. I will leave the poll open until the exec has been injected into the system.

Thanks for participating so far, I guess your votes have been helpful for @Primoz to come up with that proposal.

1 Like

Thanks for signalling, exec is live, closing poll: https://vote.makerdao.com/executive/increase-eth-a-debt-ceiling?network=mainnet

1 Like

An executive containing a 100M increase to the ETH-A ceiling passed and can be found here.

2 Likes

I think MKR should be added as collateral now. let us discuss about it.

1 Like

this is really dangerous. imagine MKR loses a lot of value and a lot of MKR vaults get liquidated with a loss for the system (-> surplus buffer gets eaten up) and it needs to print more MKR selling it against DAI into the market, further amplifying the effect of MKR losing value. Not a good idea imho.

there was already a signal request around this topic, worth reading.

I think the lose of collateral values have no effect on loss for the system unless we experience another 312.
thank YOU for your reply.

maybe not for the first liquidations. but as soon as we start diluting MKR value by printing more of it the decrease of MKR value will surely make it more likely that we get into liquidations were we add “debt to heal”, resulting in more printing, resulting in more loss. it is a death spiral

we should always expect another 312 :wink:

But lquidation may not lead to bad debts.

of course, this is what happened on black tuesday: if the collateral-auction cannot cover the debt “debt to heal” is generated which is then removed from surplus buffer. once the surplus buffer is down to zero, chunks of 50k DAI from the “debt to heal” are auctioned for new MKR

Yes, so any difference about uni or mkr be added as collateral.?

All of the collateral could be liquidated, and MKR, although it’s a governance token, has no specificity as collateral.

important difference: MKR gets (potentially) diluted on black swan events, UNI does not

okay, I got it.thank you.
The Makerdao system is not powerful enough, Hopefully one day the reckoning will be quickly enough not to generate debt.