Signal Request: Should we move to exponential rate stepping for stability fee polls?

Stability Fee increments in the polls should not be constant, they should be exponential.


  • Lets us react more strongly to changing market conditions if necessary, without having to trigger an exceptional poll in an emergency.
  • Lets us do small scale tweaking if we want to try to find the lowest stability fee setting that maintains the peg, as some MKR holders seem to have voted for recently.
  • Lets MKR holders fix the .5% precision ‘problem’, if they want to.


  • It prevents us from making more precise changes in a single poll. If we wanted to make a specific change for say 3%, this would take two polls under the proposed system.

The following options would capture doveish/hawkish sentiment in both directions with a minimum of polling options:


No change


  • Yes, we should do this.
  • No, we should not do this.

0 voters

Anyone signaling against this want to summarize their views? It seems like an easy win from my perspective.

1 Like

8% +/- options seems like too big a hammer to have on offer while there are only a couple of unchecked whales taking part in voting.

With eight options its one less poll option then the current setup and gives the possibility of finer control, whats not to like?

I’m in favor. I like math. :grinning:

Okay, not hearing a wide range of objections here, one thing that was mentioned was the +8%, -8% being too high. Is this a commonly held opinion by those voting against? New signalling poll to capture this:

Should we move to a exponential rate setting for stability fee polls?

  • Yes, limited within a range of -4% to +4% is best.
  • Yes, limited within a range of -8% to +8% is best.
  • No, I have a different objection (please consider replying if this is the case.)

0 voters

Didn’t @Vishesh suggest 0.25% changes might be enough this last call, maybe we can remove the -8%/+8% options in favor of adding -0.25%/+0.25% options?


So there are 2 dimensions within this signal request (and 1 poll):

  • number of choices
  • initial step (lowest fee change)

I think current poll is ok and can discard 2nd parameter for now. I see lowest fee of 0.5 percent as low enough and we could lower it later if necessary. Historically mkr holders raised fee too slow (from 0.5 percent to 19.5 percent) and did not use 4 percent increases (even when they could).

Regarding t-bone’s argument about the limiting max range because of the danger of “unchecked whales”.
It sounds like “censoring” options for mkr holder to vote on. I am not saying i am against it, but it does open some interesting questions about governance (which were likely already discussed, so i probably should not say open).
Maybe giving largest mkr holders more opportunity to game the system, would give new information about the robustness of the system or maybe also force other holders to also vote? Anyway, this questions are for other topic.

We haven’t really moved any closer to consensus in the last week here. To be honest I don’t see the whale argument as a particularly valid reason not to have +/-8%. Whales own MKR, they are valid governance participants.

As Jernejml said, there are multiple dimensions to this. Can we try to come to a consensus on an ‘acceptable’ outcome rather than a perfect outcome? Remember that we can poll for a second change in stepping at a later date if we decide that the options are not fit for purpose.

With the new polling dashboard, having many multiple options is less invasive. So can we come to consensus on one of the following (please vote for any of these that you would accept)

  • 0.25%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 4%, 8% (plus and minus)
  • 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 4%, 8% (plus and minus)
  • 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 4% (plus and minus)
  • 0.25%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 4% (plus and minus)
  • All of these are unacceptable, we should stick with the current system

0 voters

Lets try to find a consensus and hopefully get to a point where we can move this to an on-chain vote.


I think we need to impose some timelines for this stuff. Stating the duration of the poll and then proposing a week in which the poll should hit the governance portal would probably spur some activity.

Calendaring is something we need to address soon.

Campaigning as well. Interested parties should consider hitting up the socials and chats to generate interest in their chosen option.

Maybe some ‘Active Poll’ flag or meta thread?


I’m hesitant to support fixed timelines, as they will lead to on-chain polls happening without solid consensus backing them (in our current state of 63% consensus on two options, I don’t think this should move on-chain yet, we can do better). I think we need to look at other ways to spur activity: Keeping the thread active? Bringing it up more in meetings? General recruiting for governance bodies?

I was hoping to see more compromise on this thread, to me this feels like a fairly non-controversial QoL change. It doesn’t matter hugely to me which version of this we take, but others seem to disagree.

There are currently six people that are voting for one of the top two options but not the other. Are any of you willing to compromise further? The difference is having an 8% option in the poll. This poll does not commit us to ever use the 8%, ultimately MKR vote will decide the stability fee, as it does now. Not having an 8% option doesn’t secure the system in any appreciable way. If whales want to jack up the SF, they are going to do it under whichever stepping we end up with.

I have trouble seeing the 8% option as a sticking point. Do any of those six want to speak to their views for or against?

(not today… but in the future)… what is the general thought on a weighted consensus model? such that if we have (10k mkr in favor of 10%… and 1k mkr in favor of 0%. that the ratified amount would be the weighted average … not just 10%… thoughts?