[Signal Request]: Approve Maker Representatives as an oversight role for Real World Assets - October 2020

Hello Everyone,

As both MIP13c3-SP4 Declaration of Intent & Commercial Points - Maker Governance Intends to Utilize an Off-Chain Asset Backed Lender to onboard Real World Assets as Collateral for a DAI loan and MIP21: Real World Assets - Off-Chain Asset Backed Lender are now in the governance cycle for October 2020, I would like to get a formal signal from the community whether they would like to approve and implement a Maker Representative (in general) and then futher approve a specific list of candidate representatives that have stepped forward and expressed interest in serving in this capacity.

With the objective of bringing on Real-World Assets as collateral to MakerDAO (to which the community has signaled a desire to accelerate via [Signal Request] Should Real World Asset collateral onboarding be prioritised in the short term?, I submitted both a Declaration of Intent to Utilize an Off-Chain Asset Backed Lender to onboard Real World Assets as Collateral for a DAI loan and MIP21: Real World Assets - Off-Chain Asset Backed Lender, as its technical counterpart. Embodied within the above, includes the ability for a off-chain lender to provide loans for a specific capital “sink” while having MakerDAO provide that capital in a secured manner. A specific “role” is included with those proposals, the Maker Representative.

Another recent forum post Calling community members to be a Maker Representative asked for volunteers for this role which had a number of folks raise their hand.

Fundamentally, as Real World Assets are brought on as collateral, the DAO as an organization is basically operating in the “dark” as information the DAO receives can only be information released to the public. All off-chain lenders will come in contact with “confidential” information. The fundamental on-going role of a Maker Representative is to be a proxy for the DAO as he / she can execute a non-disclosure agreement with the off-chain lender and can provide an “early warning system” should an off-chain lender not be in compliance with the agreements. I wrote another forum post about translucent finance covering this topic. In addition, the Maker Representative will have administrative engagement with the off-chain lender to help setup the initial legal construct (e.g. engagement with a trustee).

What a Maker Representative needs to do:

Required Activities:

  • Execute a non-disclosure agreement with an off-chain lender

  • Review lender’s legal setup and construct

  • Review lender’s transactions on a spot and quarterly basis


    • Independent Financial Statements and confirm they were delivered timely
    • No operations outside of approved scope
    • No loans above portfolio threshold issued
    • Equity requirements for all loans in compliance
    • All loans issued are either performing or under construction
    • Report back to the community the abstracted summary of the above:
      • Fully Compliant
      • Compliant with minor comments.
      • Material Breach - Not in compliance.

Note: The Community can easily replace Maker Representatives !

The community can use this signal request to express support or opposition to the concept of a Maker Representatives (in general) add then express support or opposition to add the initial group of individuals below as the first Maker Representatives conditioned upon MIP21 and its subproposal MIP13c3-SP4 Declaration of Intent & Commercial Points - Maker Governance Intends to Utilize an Off-Chain Asset Backed Lender to onboard Real World Assets as Collateral for a DAI loan passing an executive vote.

Note: A Maker Representative may also form a legal entity to carry-out the same duties.

The proposed individuals to be the initial Maker Representatives would be:

Do we create an oversight role for Real World Assets collateral based lending for the benefit of MakerDAO?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

If “Yes”, do we nominate the above individuals to serve as Maker Representatives?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Next Steps

Polling will last until 16 October 2020 12:00 UTC. Please choose all options you agree with. I look forward to your discussion and participation!


I am honoured to be mentioned in the proposed initial list of Maker Representatives, but I have to decline.

I simply don’t have the legal competences to properly fullfill this job. @mrabino1 could you please remove my name from the list?

In the meanwhile I vote YES for the others, all respected and very active members of the community.


Would be good to see more votes on this.

I’m noticing a lot of the people mentioned are abstaining as well. I don’t think that’s necessary in this case, despite you being included as a proposed Representative. There are ~8 other people in the same proposal after all.

For those abstaining who aren’t mentioned, what would you need to see in order to vote positively for this proposal?


Not nominated but abstaining as I have no thoughts on RWA.


Just a note. If I wasn’t in the list I would probably vote yes for the rest. Being in the list I have to abstain from voting for myself.

I did vote yes on the proposal because I think Maker needs a ‘team of reps’ doing this job.

As to getting more turn-out on polls and votes. I am going to urge people to vote on this (one way or another) as I think it is important.

1 Like

I obviously voted yes, but I also am disappointed that such an important vote has not brought more community engagement. It is kind of a big deal to bring in Real World Assets. Potential game changer.


This signal-request has closed with significant “Yes” votes and zero “No” votes.


So how useful would Maker Representatives be as an “early warning system”, sounds like an audit but they could be given fake data.

Very useful. For real-world assets, there is zero anonymity. Licensed attorneys working with licensed title companies to put liens on real-estate transactions (for the initial proposed scope). Those attorneys can be validated as can the title companies. A dose of healthy skepticism is needed but only to an extent.

The default assumption should be that parties do not intend to engage is fraudulent criminal activity as ALL of the parties in a given transaction have been doing this for years (in this case, parties = Lender / Attorneys / Title companies / Trust Company).

The early warning system I am referring to is most fundamentally around confirmation of transactions in approved scope and equity requirements are being met along with other community agreed terms.

1 Like

Both signal and on-chain poll have passed. Welcome and congratulations to our new Maker Representatives.


This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.