[Signal Request] Petition Letter to A16z

[this is basically a re-post of this, where I failed to follow the right template for a Signal Request. My apologies.]

following this thread ([Proposal] Petition Letter to A16z), which seems to have received a warm feedback from the community, I am moving on to the next step with this Signal Request.

This Signal Request asks if you agree to sign (with on-chain vote) Governance the petition letter uploaded to the IPFS here:


which you should be able to view directly with Brave Browser in a decentralised way or


With any other browser (centralised proxy). The advantage of uploading on IPFS is that the document is immutable (as opposed to, e.g., a forum post here), because the address is its hash.

Do you want to sign the A16z petition linked above?
  • YES
  • NO

0 voters


  1. I have re-read the letter and improved it using comments from community members. Nevertheless it might still be imperfect and/or contain typos. In such a case please let me know and I will edit the document and modify the IPFS address accordingly. The important thing is to have an immutable petition letter once the on-chain poll starts.
  2. Communication to A16z. Once the onchain poll is completed, everybody will be able to see the result. Therefore anybody is free to inform A16z and/or the community about the result in the way they prefer.

Next Steps:
This poll will be open for about two weeks and will be closed the 7th of April.
After this time, if the outcome is positive (YES > NO), the poll will move to on-chain.


I resisted the urge to change “s” to “z” where appropriate :stuck_out_tongue: but here are some minor edits. Please feel free to use ‘em or trash ‘em.

1 Like

So, just logistics, we thinking to publish this on IPFS? Print to PDF and send to someone at a16z with a “please see the attached correspondence”? FWIW, I think we should publish it AND send a courier to a16z’s office with the sender being “MakerDAO.” First time in history a DAO has used the US postal system? #breakingbarriers


Looks like a16z started selling some MKR a month ago through Aave and just moved their holdings 4 days ago. https://etherscan.io/token/0x9f8f72aa9304c8b593d555f12ef6589cc3a579a2?a=0x05e793ce0c6027323ac150f6d45c2344d28b6019

1 Like

Following @iammeeoh’s advice I’m pasting a chat message I sent :

“re: the letter, I abstained in the forum vote because I have a high uncertainty level on the topic, but I’ll give my opinion here. I think it signals weakness rather than strength. We are not in a position to actually make demands, we are supposed to self-manage, and asking for their involvement is contradictory. The idea that Maker needs to call for help weakens the DAO thesis, or alternatively the idea that we think a16z owes Maker anything is a very bad look. Maybe the idea is to send an innocuous message “hey just a reminder that you can participate !” but doing it in public through a ‘petition’ undermines that goal.”


Asking one of the largest investors to get involved in Governance is not ‘weakness’ and I don’t read this letter at all as making demands. If this was a run of the mill startup, company leadership would be engaged with their largest investors and leveraging their expertise to build the company.

We are building a completely new way of working and are in uncharted waters - large VCs like a16z have worked with thousands of startups and have the knowledge and expertise to help build something game-changing. Successful VCs got to where they were due to their advisory skills and resources they bring to the table, they are not in the business of solely cutting checks.

If I own the hottest startup in the valley and I’m raising capital, do I look purely at whoever will provide me the highest valuation? No, I’m going to pick the investors who bring something to the table. Look at their website:

"We aim to connect entrepreneurs, investors, executives, engineers, academics, industry experts, and others in the technology ecosystem. We have built a network of experts including technical and executive talent; top media and marketing resources; Fortune 500/Global 2000 companies; as well as other technology decision makers, influencers, and key opinion leaders. a16z uses this network as part of our commitment to help our portfolio companies grow their business, so our operating teams provide entrepreneurs with access to expertise and insights across the entire spectrum of company building."

This letter signals to me the humility of the community and lack of ego - no one in the community knows it all and reaching out to a seasoned firm to engage them proactively only seems logical to me.


@iammeeoh , I doesn’t think there is any weakness to try to contact share holder.

All votes passed recently.

With regards of this statement, I would say, it is the opposite as governance can burn mkr from any address. I know it sounds extreme but governance can do it.
I am pretty sure they have as much interest to contribute as anyone else.


I am surprised the only ‘No’ is from me. I did not see any proof of a16z provided anything of value to the Maker Protocol. I am glad they are selling. Unless, they have insider information about US regulations, hehe.

1 Like

Thanks for explaining your vote @jernejml, I was indeed curious of why you voted for NO.

Fair enough. Although I think we need to grant them the benefit of the doubt. It might be that:

  1. they have helped a lot the Foundation during the last few years?
  2. maybe they haven’t, but this is not their fault but of the legal difficulties around the foundation and MKR in general (as a security?).

If they decline the petition and/or just ignore it, we will be able to establish the status of things in a more clear way.

REMINDER [1 Day left]: the Signal Request ends tomorrow, 7th of April.



thank to all that voted (36 voters).

  • YES 61%
  • NO 3%
  • ABSTAIN 36%.

Thank to @seth for fixing some typos and proposing some minor edits.

I will now coordinate with the Governance CU to move the poll on-chain.


This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.