Vault Compensation Plan Proposal

So to recap:

  1. Three months ago, we had a poll on 2020-04-06 asking MKR token holders if they want to compensate Black Friday “victims”. This passed with a 9.54% participation rate (95,924.47 MKR total votes) and 76 unique voters.

  2. After that poll, individuals on this forum decided that a more formalized compensation plan was necessary and set about creating one.

  3. After much hard work and several months later, another poll was executed this week asking MKR token holders if we want to go ahead with the detailed plan (which specified further polls). This failed with a 4.35% participation rate (43,700.92 MKR total votes) and 33 unique voters.

Assuming at least a certain overlap of voters from the two polls, we need to know what the community wants. Otherwise, we’re back where we started 3 months ago. But I want to point out very clearly that, as things stand now, there is still more evidence of support for compensating rather than not compensating.

However, for some reason, we haven’t been able to pass a poll to determine how this should actually go down. I am also sympathetic to @Spidomo’s suggestion of a “one and done” poll, but this might end up rubbing people the wrong way… even more so than they already are now.


I guess we are here now :point_up: where it’s valid to assume MKR governance still have the intention to compensate vault losses but doesn’t accept the plan presented so far.

Therefore, we just need to improve this, but I wondered how can we gather feedback from the “NO” voters. I know by experience the cognitive cost implicit in voting, and I just can imagine the main reason people voted “no” is because the plan is actually very complex to understand. It took me a while to understand it, because I have special interest as a Black Friday Victim, I can only guess that people with nothing to lose would tend to vote “no” (or not voting) if they have to dedicate some effort to understand the plan.

ATM, I have more questions than answers (as I guess most of the people here):

  • Why do we simplify the plan’s communication so we minimize cognitive cost to MKR voters?
  • How do we gather valuable feedback about why people voted no? What are we missing here?
  • Do we have in mind ant improvements/suggestions to make that would empathize with MKR “no” voters that might encourage them to vote “YES” in a follow up poll?
  • Would it be worth to create more awareness outside Maker community before next voting will happen looking forward to increase MKR voting participation while making also some social pressure around the topic?

I can only agree with this :point_down:

but I’m unsure about how technically feasible it might be.



I think it would help everyone arrive at a common understanding of fair compensation if individual affected vault holders would share the specific compensation they believe they should receive for their affected vault: Vault Liquidation Compensation: How Much Should Have Been Returned To Your Vault?

Would you get things started by adding yours?

1 Like

I’m not sure who need to see this:


This seems a simple, elegant and effective resolution by Balancer.

This should have been Maker setting the precedent, not the other way round.

What are the thoughts against something as simple as this? It seems a quick and easy resolution.

1 Like

Could we bring a vote on whether or not we should hire a 3rd party to prepare a compensation plan? If that passes, they prepare a plan, then we can vote on their proposal.


Yeah, that is the right way to go. But this is only for general terms possible. The code comes from MakerDAO anyway.

That is a possibility. It does face some of the same problems with the current situation though, in that MKR Holders would need to approve the use of funds to hire a third party.

It might be a good way to resolve this, but bear in mind that if a third party comes up with a plan, and MKR Holders vote it down, they are still out the money spent, and we’re no further towards compensation. I guess what I’m saying is that said third-party would need to try to engage with governance to find out what they are willing to approve.