There have been multiple ideas and proposals around using other defi protocols to support Maker functions. On the top of my head I could mention replacing buy-and-burn with buy-and-make, proposal for a strategic fund, b protocol backstop, insurance of Maker through Nexus Mutual and using Uniswap as an active fund. I am sure there are others as well.
Is this the way forward or is it an evolutionary dead end?
It is a bit of an either/or question, making a strategic choice for the whole Maker ecosystem. Maker is either envisioned as an independent protocol or it is not. It is either dependent on other defi systems or it is not. There is just no middle ground on this.
This is why it could be important for us as a community to discuss the pros and cons of the strategic direction of Maker - will we go the way of integrating with other defi projects or will we go the way towards replacing humans with code - gradually becoming a protocol for money. The most enthusiastic will off course answer ‘both please’, but that is just not how things work. Every single time we outsource a function or make use of outside projects for support we are at the same time anchoring human involvement in the active running of Maker. Why? Because active funds must have active managers. Insurance plans must have humans reviewing them. Relying on other defi projects for core functions such as liquidations requires very vigilant human oversight. While there might be benefits, all outsourcing of functions increases the administrative load on Maker governance in the form of brains, not code. There is simply no way to have your cake and eat it too on this subject.
The integration with other defi projects could possibly be the way to go forward, but it is in direct opposition with the intention of Maker becoming the Linux of money. So what I am proposing is that we have a principled discussion on the direction of Maker. Right now I feel there is a vacuum with little or no leadership from the Foundation on this subject. This might be intentional or not but the net result is that community members could end up putting their hearts and minds into into proposals that hits a Wall of No once it is time to vote on them. This is wasteful use of creative energy and could create friction in the community.
I prefer to hear your arguments and so decided against using a poll on this topic.