[Signal Request] Interim DAO Operating Budget

Happy new year everyone!

The DAO Autonomous Group has been growing a lot since its inception. We now have 10 members actively working to move towards the decentralized future of Maker. As our responsibilities have been scaling up, so have our bills. So far the Foundation has been able to cover most things through the grants program, but with the introduction of the community-led PSM we are now racking up costs which need to be covered. We believe it is time to take the next step towards the DAO funding operation of the protocol.

The DAO Autonomous Group proposes setting up a Gnosis multi-sig wallet for the end of the month owned by all mandated domain facilitators who opt-in. As of right now this would include:

By the end of the month there are potentially 3 more candidates to join the multi-sig:

We propose running this as a (N - 1) of N multi-sig so you need the signatures of 1 less than all the owners. We will also be whitelisting governance with full authority over the wallet, so they can take the funds back at any time. This allows us to keep a conservative threshold for fund distribution as there is no risk due to key loss. The Autonomous DAO group will keep public records of when and why funds are distributed. The DAO will also return any remaining funds if the number of signatories drops below 3.

To get things started we propose an initial budget of 100k DAI to cover previous expenses (~50k mostly for the PSM audit) as well as give us some budget for January and February. For perspective this is less than 2 days of protocol revenue at current numbers. We will be preparing a formal MIP in parallel as well to cover how funds are allocated on an ongoing basis. In the event the MIP fails the remainder of the 100k DAI will be returned to the surplus buffer, and another strategy will be devised. There is also a 1 year expiry in which the funds will also be returned.

  • Yes, I want to proceed with this plan with 100k DAI
  • Yes, I want to proceed with this plan, but 100k DAI is too much
  • No, I do not want to proceed with this plan
  • Abstain

0 voters

This poll will be run for 2 weeks closing on Tuesday, January 19th which can be extended if there is significant controversy or discussion. If this poll passes then it will proceed to an on-chain governance vote for the week of February 1st to give time to confirm who the domain facilitators are. If the governance vote passes then the following executive will include a vat.suck() to move 100k DAI from the surplus buffer to the multi-sig.


I voted yes. I cannot really tell if 100k is too much or not, but in the end this does not really matter.

After PSM as a first community driven deliverable this is the biggest next milestone of becoming a real DAO. I have fill trust in all individuals listed here and I am looking forward for the future. Proud to be part of this (even if just participating from the sidelines).

Let’s DAO it!


I would go with 200k (just to decrease amount of such polls).


How do signal that 100k isn’t enough?

Wait. How long is this for? Unconditional? What is the timeframe?


I like this move and fully support it. Yearn was able to become a self-funded DAO so it is definitely doable for MakerDAO.

I think it’ll be for January and February.

1 Like

Let’s start with 100k and top up later. We can improve along the way

This is an interim budget until we get a formal formal structure set up. There is already ~50k in outstanding bills and we wanted a bit of wiggle room to fund ongoing PSM dev as well as potentially DssGovRewards. Appreciate you guys wanting to provide more, but we are mostly still covered by grants and just wanted to dip our toes in first.

1 Like

I do agree. 100k is not much (plus half of it will go to pay the audit) but we should give the first step in this direction (I see this Signal Request as that step).

We don’t know yet what will happen in the on-chain votes, what big MKR holders have to say in this regard. I trust that they see this as the right direction of events, but we should first ensure that’s the case (once we go on-chain).

Also adding more members of the community to the multi-sig will ensure that everybody will feel more comfortable with it, including big MKR holders.

My full support for this, really happy to see this happening already!


If we can get this through, it will be a turning point for the DAO.

Once developers across DeFi sees that you can get paid by the maker community directly when you contribute, we will begin to see a lot more contributions and new code and upgrades to the protocol!


I am not opposed to this generally but if 50K is already spent. I see 50k for the PSM audit. What will the other 50K get, when?

I guess I will wait for a formal MIP.

Also N-1 probably not ideal as if two are lost for any time this means funds are locked. Improbable to be sure but I would go for N-2 at least (which won’t work with < 3) with 2 it means one person authorizes. I’d say get a larger group (5 and do N-2). In 1Hive swarms (DAOs themselves) basically use majority of quorum (quorum decided by holding non-transferrable swarm tokens).


This will mostly be going to the Quantstamp audit. They estimated 40k for 2 audit-weeks, but I still have to do another round with them and get the final bill. The rest will be for my dev time and contract deployment gas costs for both the PSM as well as DssGovRewards. Anything where I cannot be paid by the Foundation.

I mentioned this in the post, but lost keys is not an issue because we are whitelisting governance as an admin account, so worst case scenario if the keys are lost then governance can perform an executive vote to return the funds to the surplus buffer.


A couple of words on this. My acting as a keyholder is contingent on there being at least two other keyholders. So I’m hoping that one or more of the potential mandated actors will also be ratified in January.

Regarding process on this, normally this would be something I’d like to handle as a MIP through the monthly cycle, but we’re running in to the situation where it’s actively causing us problems to not have the ability to pay people. This became particularly noticeable when it came to the PSM, and organising the audit.

We were originally hoping that the more-permanent solution would arrive in time for us not to need to worry about about an interim version, but as it turns out, setting up a sustainable, extensible and transparent structure for budgeting and payments is more complicated than it sounds.

I also think that the 100k starting amount will need to be added to in the near future, but we felt it was important to start small to maintain trust rather than saying something along the lines of ‘we want 500k to cover the next 3-6 months worth of potential expenses.’


I also agree with the majority of comments here.

I also think 100k is very low, especially if 50k are already spent. But it’s hard to tell without a formal MIP.

You are saying that 100k should be enough, so let’s go for this, but this should probably be increased soon. But again it also depend on what this budget is for. So waiting to know more.

Also agree with this. N-1 doesn’t give a lot of flexibility. Maybe we can start like that and change it latter. but N-2 seems better to move quickly. Especially if multisig holders live on different time zones.

Yeah. I was there with you on the MIP to authorize DAI transfers - seems so long ago. So now with Foundation pretty much riding off into the sunset you and the few others here are having to bootstrap the entire DAO from scratch. Why I think doing a MIP for some real funds beyond 100K is probably desirable. I honestly would support up to 500K given that is earned in what 2 weeks now.

I would urge you and primoz to get your team of 5 and put together a .3-5Mish proposal with some basics laid out. As a MKR holder I am very supportive of this. We risk millions every day it is time we start using some of those millions being earned to get the true MakerDAO off the ground. I expect a real budget will be in the 1-2M/yr (really higher for entire DAO functions) and I can’t think of anyone I’d trust more than yourself to see those funds managed with prudence and as much transparency as possible.

The above is exactly why I would agree to doing more. Honestly put at least a rough idea of budget for at least 3 months (ideally 6) together. If it is reasonable and includes at least a small component to pay someone to provide transparent updates as to spending and quality assurance I think we would find significant support. I’d rather your group get more than ample funding to start and hazard losing 50K (what 20hrs of Maker earnings) to something than to short change you guys and cause headaches in the effort to find and retain key people.

This was needed 6 months ago, even more so now.


I’d like to know the roadmap and the expenses without much details.

This proposal is only a first step, really just used to finance some unexpected stuff that the community wants. The PSM audit is a good example, it was decided quite in a rush and we were lucky to have an audit firm that agreed to be paid only if the DAO wish.

Instead of spending months of designing the perfect system to find that it doesn’t work in real life, we take a more fragmented, test & learn approach to craft the good MIP at the end. You can expect 2 other proposals in the short term.


The roadmap for the Maker protocol is being mostly set by the Foundation SC team. I primarily work with them on the agreed upon agenda, but these funds are for things that they cannot assist with such as the PSM and DssGovRewards. The PSM is now live, but there is more work to do extending it to other collateral types and setting up a website UI along with documentation.

1 Like

Moving forward there should probably be a quarterly budget with line items as to how the funds will be used to finance growth initiatives. For transparency’s sake.