To clarify, by “proposal” I meant “executive vote”. So rejecting is as easy as it gets: you simply don’t vote for it!
I am confused as to what one of those things has to do with the other. It is simultaneously true that delegation will (one hopes) increase voting activity and that, very recently, a rate change seemed urgent, went to executive (with overwhelming onchain polling support), and may or may not pass the executive vote.
Right, so on process I’m clearly glad things can move along quickly so obviously I’m not supporting a reversal on that basis.
On substance I was for the rates change and, if it passes, I hope we’ll learn a lot looking at how the market reacts. Very happy to revisit in a few weeks and evaluate then
I don’t know how we will do that. We are leaving no ETH ilks as a control. We are capturing little time series data.
Let’s stop passing the buck to an absentee voter base. The absence of MKR holders from a 72-hour poll posted by itself without even a debate period on the forum should not be construed as the will of MKR holders.
I struggle to reconcile the DAO’s principles of decentralization and duty to serve MKR holders with a small cadre slipping a poll immediately on-chain when there is no period of debate and they had the opportunity to find the de minimus votes required to pass, while any opposition is not afforded the opportunity to do the same.
Surely you would feel differently if another small group self-styled themselves a PPG and followed the exact same process to double rates rather than cut them in half?
To clarify, the passing of the Executive Vote would change the parameters upon its execution. We would need another Exec in order to pass and execute in order to undue the rates change.
So as far as @ultraschuppi 's point on next steps, the most direct line would be having this signal lead to an onchain poll to roll back the latest rates changes from the MOMC. Then if that passed it could then be included in the following exec to “undo” the rates changes.
Might be worth adding that clarification to the poll @PaperImperium, unless you were envisioning something different.
Great question, thank you! So after introspecting a little bit and with the usual caveats about bias etc, I would not feel bad about the process at all, I would hope the executive does not pass, and I would not want to wait a few weeks before discussing lowering rates again. That last part is not in symmetry with my current “let’s wait a bit” stance, maybe for good reasons (temporarily excessive rates can create lasting PR damage whereas temporarily insufficient rates are just some lost revenue) but also maybe for bad ones (more motivation to keep an outcome I agree with than to keep one I don’t like).
So I want to start out by thanking you for raising this as an issue, @PaperImperium, it’s hard to get people invested in the process of governance itself, and it’s always a highlight when someone does, even if it’s to object in some way.
You are correct that the process we followed violated the spirit of MIP46. I’ll go into a little detail about why I decided this was fine in this case a bit further down.
With all this said, if you’re going to setup signal requests like this, please make an effort to present the issue in a neutral and unbiased manner. You have argued towards repeal, and spent no words on arguing the advantage to making this exception to process.
The inclusion of emotionally charged terms and lack of representation of the other side, makes this feel like an effort to convince people to vote in favour of repeal. Signal Requests are intended to reveal and solidify consensus, not to push one side of an issue.
Just to be clear, while I recognize the opportunity for this, none of this happened.
To this, I would argue that this proposal was at least partially a response to the feedback from the previous proposal.
We would put up another on-chain poll, if it passed we would include a repeal in a subsequent executive vote.
Want to push back a bit on this. My presence isn’t a guarantee that we’re doing the ‘right’ thing.
So I want to be clear that I’d considered this issue, and ensured that I informed the larger holders that I am in contact with that the vote existed, and that it reduced rates. I also encouraged them to vote.
So, I should have included my reasoning for breaking the process in the thread in question. I did respond to it, but should have been more clear as to why I felt it was valid.
So I’ll do that now:
I felt it was acceptable in this instance to expedite the process because:
Response to the previous PPG proposal did not feel that we had gone far enough with changes - and people were concerned that the delay was resulting in a lack of competitiveness and materially harming the protocol.
The mandated actors had also discussed the idea of further rate reductions outside of the PPG and were broadly (though not entirely) in favour. It’s possible that the mandated actors would have pushed something similar if the PPG hadn’t.
There was a signal request that commented on speeding up the process, to which I highlighted cutting down the discussion time as one of the optimisations to improve turnaround. Frankly, it felt like a workable idea, and I wanted to see what the response would be.
Delays to the PPG turnaround have been highlighted multiple times in the past and we’ve made no process change, again, it felt like it was worth attempting to lean in the other direction.
The proposal is just that, a proposal. The PPG group does not have the power to implement anything. We expedited a proposal for a change, not the change itself. The 3 day weekly poll duration is not new, it’s existed for multiple years. If larger MKR Holders felt that it was unsuitable, they have had years to change it. They haven’t done so. Ultimately a number of MKR Holders were present and voted in the poll, others were not. If larger holders cannot check in once a week when they have literally hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, to see if there is something that concerns them even when directly prompted to do so, my sympathy is limited.
The executive vote exists as a final backstop to prevent something passing if it is unpopular. Delaying CU budgets for a week is unfortunate and would cause some problems, but those problems can be worked around if people truly do not want this.
Additionally, as you’ve stated, there is nothing here that cannot be reversed. Downside is that governance looks a bit schizophrenic. Again, that’s unfortunate, but maybe that encourages people to take the weekly poll processes more seriously.
I am supporting the repeal because I specifically asked a couple questions, the most important in my view received no response, which was “Please show, based on current usage and not expectations of gained market share, profit or loss if those rates are implemented. Apologies if I missed it somewhere. If losing, then what additional market share/volume would need to be obtained to break even.” The proposal should not have proceeded until this question was answered in some form.
Central banks major duty is not a profit in a first way. But market share). But I do have on question to you. As a legal adviser what do you think of Wyoming Law. Seems to me 75000 votes is not enough for the quorum.
I am voting Yes. My primary concern is related to the downstream bundling of the Executive which may contain contentious items. We really want to avoid scenarios where folks launch campaigns against an executive.
With basically zero time to have any debate, we are rapidly pushing toward putting all of the power in the hands of a few. I don’t have an issue with recommendations in the hands of a. few, but debate is essential with a minimal process to allow modifications.
I do not think we need a wee, even 24 hours would be better than zero.
I voted “yes” as ultimately I believe there should have been a more formal discussion/debate as outlined in MIP46c2.
That said, I do want to recognize the circumstances laid out by @LongForWisdom in that there was already some debate/precedence from a prior PPG, and that the judgement call to expedite was not entirely unwarranted.
There were a poll that last 3 days or more. While it seems little the next rate changes is in 20 days. That is leave 15 days at max before the next PPG, how do you want to evaluate the impact on the previous change if it did not happen.
May be the debate should happen before the PPG. The same way we had the summer party debat.
I am careful to not opine without knowing all of the facts. However, maybe an option to consider would be to have the proposal released on a Friday so the community would have time to digest over the weekend and raise any issues and then go into a poll on Monday. From my lens, that would allow a decent hybrid of both speed and informational flow.
Would it changed the decision? It wouldn’t because once you take a decision you don’t change it 2 days after and 2 days after again.
I understand your point of view. And you can see actually the vote against this rate changes being on the case you raise. If we remove the PSM today the dai would be at 10 dollars right now. I would ask you what the fact which lead to have a PSM full? Why people want to have an easy cash access? Why do they want no liability on this cash?
The only way to sort this out and avoid all political problems - as it is - is to make the rules clear by coding them and shipping the code. That is how we do, that is how we are removing the need to know all of the facts.
I think it could be even easier than this. If the rates group is following a formula, they could just publish the formula and this will be the assumed changes on a weekly basis. If you think something is wrong, you’ll be able to see the outcome from a while away and petition to change the formula/override it.
I’d advise against anything too “on-chain” unless it’s gone through some serious manipulation-testing.