[Signal Request] Would you like to see MakerDAO move in the general direction indicated by the post ‘The Case for Clean Money'?

Given the discussion and excitement generated by @rune’s recent Clean Money post. GovAlpha is laying out the next steps with respect to governance on this issue.

We’re aware that some want to see governance action very quickly, and others want to better specify before moving forward. We believe we can accommodate both sides with the following process.

Step 1

Put up signal request voting on general agreement with the direction described in Rune’s Clean Money post. This signal will make no concrete or binding promises with respect to actual action.

Step 2

If successful, put up an on-chain poll, again voting on general agreement with the direction described in the post. Given the importance of the decision, and the difficulty some larger holders have voting quickly, this on-chain poll will last 7 days. Like the signal, this poll will specifically not bind MakerDAO to any concrete action with respect to the post.

Step 3

As Step’s 1 and 2 take place, the community should collaborate on creating a MIP or Declaration of Intent which both:

  • Clarifies the vision agreed to previously in general terms.
  • Lays out in more detail how MakerDAO intends to proceed with and hopefully achieve that vision.

This step will likely require more explicit polling to figure out a set of principles, and hopefully some exploratory work which helps break down some of the items proposed in Rune’s post.

Step 4

The proposal is submitted in the January monthly governance cycle and is voted on by MKR Holders the same as any other monthly proposal.

Step 1 - Initial Signal

Would you like to see MakerDAO move in the general direction indicated by the post ‘The Case for Clean Money’?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Note that the outcome of the above signal is non-binding and does not reflect an obligation for MakerDAO to implement any part of said post. It is intended to indicate in which way the MakerDAO community (and subsequently MKR Holders) are leaning so that community members and MKR Holders can take this information into account in their actions over the following few months.

Next Steps

This signal poll will conclude on 2021-10-21T00:00:00Z, at which point an on-chain poll will be organised. We may delay the on-chain poll in order to allow us to reach out to larger MKR Holders prior to the poll beginning.


Regarding step 3 on clarifying the vision, I anticipate at least two areas that will need clarification:

  • What role should nuclear power play?
  • Is it appropriate to use animal products as human food?
1 Like

The real question is when clarifying the details whether this is going to specify any details regarding measurable actionable outcomes.

I honestly find ‘clean’ to be a complete misnomer and would prefer ‘sustainable’ anything here. The question isn’t whether what we do is ‘clean’ because to many people a natural wetlands - is dirty - even though some of these ecosystems do quite a bit to ‘purify water’. The question is whether a human action, or activity is something that can be sustained indefinitely via materials recycling and renewable energy resources.

Which will bring me to:

Given the size and number of nuclear accidents one does have to wonder. Put a sustainability metric on this. Frankly the amount of energy and waste just to mine is significant and storage or use of waste has been a political and practical nightmare. If we have a Carrington like solar flare event that takes down local water cooling to waste pools we could have vaporized waste plumes in as little as 2 weeks in places. I don’t see nuclear at this point as ‘sustainable’ long term - at least in its current technological state.

FYI: Safer Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel | Union of Concerned Scientists

Still looking for the analysis of what were to happen if a Carrington like event halted all water cooling in these secondary storage pools. Notice in above report that fuel storage densities were increased by a factor of 5. I think this was after the first report I read 10-20 years ago indicating that long term storage facilities could boil their water and catch fire within as little as 2 weeks.


For a more detailed report of the possible hazards here. From my seat as nuclear sits, it is unsustainable and in fact presents one of the most significant hazard risks should a Carrington like solar flare event happen. A lot of people have brought up this issue including NASA and Union of Concerned Scientists - and so far very little real action has been taken to prepare for these events leaving the US and hence the world exposed to the significant risks presented by this spent nuclear fuel.

As to:

I can’t wait to see the debate on this one. Real good analysis suggests humans waste a hell of a lot of clean water and feed to produce protein in this form and could do much better moving to plant based proteins. I think a certain level of meat production IS sustainable, but how much meat we can produce sustainably per person is probably a heck of a lot lower than people think. At some point one way or another humans will be forced to make the switch.

As one who produces his own family meat by raising animals I think we would have a lot less meat eaters if people had to raise their own animals and then ‘dispatch’ and process them for consumption. As an occasional meat eater I felt if I was going to eat meat it was only fair I did everything required to produce it. We eat less and less meat all the time btw… But on the odd chance I had to ramp this up and do it in a sustainable way in a pinch I could.


What if I’m supportive of the focus on clean energy funding but not supportive of the tokenomics revamp? Are these two gonna be lumped together?


Note that the outcome of the above signal is non-binding and does not reflect an obligation for MakerDAO to implement any part of said post.

It’s intentionally general at this stage. If you feel that you agree more with the post than you disagree, vote in favor. When we try to write it up in a MIP we’ll get into all the implementation details. We may have more polls in the meantime to figure out what goes in the MIP.

1 Like

Tokenomics seem almost orthogonal to clean money. I am guessing being pro-clean money anti-proposed tokenomics will be a somewhat popular opinion.


I want to understand how Maker’s Mission (and implementation) would change if Maker moves toward Clean Money.

I think the current Maker mission is as follows:

“The mission of the MakerDAO products and the Maker foundation is to create an unbiased currency for the world, which of course means for everyone all across the world.”

Would Maker add a Clean Money section to this, making Clean Money equally important to the existing Mission? How would Maker prioritize resources and focus across both worthy goals?

Do we risk losing focus if we try to serve two masters (the stablecoin and climate change), so to speak?


I love this topic so I wanted to write on it.

Maker already has multiple goals and masters.

  1. Profit for MKR holders
  2. Unbiased currency
  3. Universal access (“for everyone across the world”)

Uninversal access for instance would mean focussing on DAI being ported to Solana or Polygon, or even funding work in state channels or rollups. Unbiased currency however would dictate that focussing on Solana or Polygon risks bias, stick to ethereum. Profit for MKR holders says don’t fund rollups or anyone, hurts our bottom line.

Or even the USDC debate, having an unbiased currency would prioritise getting rid of USDC exposure, whereas profit-motivated or universal access-motivated people would be less particular.

Vitalik has some interesting writeups on shareholder governance. Key point is no matter what you do there will be a majority who is screwing over the interests of a minority. And this is normal and happens all the time in orgs. The “screwing over” is worse when the goals are completely misaligned - say 30% of MKR holders want pure altruism no profit, 40% of MKR holders want pure profit no altruism. This is part of the reason why many traditional orgs are only interested in profit at all costs - once you have ten different people in the room often the only goal they can universally agree on is maximising profit (even if some of them individually care about other things).

Having a faction vote “clean money and altruistic motives if it doesn’t significantly hurt our bottom line” is a lot more aligned with a faction voting “profit at all costs” than say “focus on clean money no matter what”. But yes as shown in examples right at the top, you will always have unhappy investors - unless you invent some wild new governance model.

I think discussing this meta will be useful if Maker also wants to inspire other DAOs into becoming more altruistic (without screwing over their investors).


On-chain poll for this will be put up on Monday and will last for seven days given the lack of urgency and the importance of the poll.

1 Like

This poll was successful in its on-chain poll here. Thanks to all who took the time to vote.

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