Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
61 lines (45 loc) · 5.02 KB

risk_14.md

File metadata and controls

61 lines (45 loc) · 5.02 KB
Raw

Risk #14 - 11/15/2018

Introductions

  • Rich, Steven

MKR gives governance rights and a claim to the future value of the system [1:43]

  • It’s not a claim to the future value of the system but the value you create
  • In a traditional stock purchase, the stockholder is entitled to future earnings of the company. Looking at the order of liquidation preference you can see what value might be recovered in the event of a bankruptcy/liquidation
  • Maker doesn’t have that property. If Maker doesn’t work anymore then you don’t have a claim to any liquidated value, except market value
  • There is no entity to handle management if you decide not to vote. You don’t have representation at “the board” if you don’t actively manage your vote

In Maker voting, the value being delivered by proposals will have quantifiable data to go with so it is less subjective than other governance systems/proposals being considered. [13:45]

  • MakerDAO differentiates itself through highly vetted proposals using data to reproduce the conclusions
  • We’ll breakdown proposals to the simplistic forms to remove most of their contentious aspects

Is the voting interface going to be available for the first vote? [20:28]

  • Live from the foundation proposal vote at vote.makerdao.com

What should the names of the votes be? Are the current names clear? [22:29]

  • Executive vote is a subsequent vote to a governance vote - changes state of the system
    • Execution or implementation vote
  • Governance votes are about anything from oracles to collateral-types
    • Is this actually a signaling vote or resolution vote?

Who actually handles the implementation of the governance vote for the oracles or risk teams? [24:15]

  • Execution of the governance vote will have to be off-chain by a core group
  • The new oracle or risk team will need to be compensated for their work through a smart contract or other mechanism
  • Would be interesting to have a mock vote process

Why don’t we need a quorum? [26:46]

  • In the traditional world, quorums are important to establish a critical mass of interest in a proposal or action
  • These numbers will tend to be arbitrary numbers
  • Without a quorum, it is the MKR holder’s responsibility to stay engaged with the system and be active in governance
  • A quorum becomes a natural blocker to proposals that might be held if it is unlikely it would have enough interest to meet the quorum

Does continuous voting lower the bar so much that we’ll end up with crap being proposed? [32:00]

  • If someone proposes that is off the wall, it will be pretty clear that it’s not going to fit the model

MKR token holders are the guardians of the system along with accepting proposals to improve the system [34:15]

Continuous voting doesn’t mean thoroughly understanding the code base or being constantly assessing collateral 24/7. It is up to the MKR token holders to unlock the value in proposals. [35:20]

Is there a way to vote without locking your MKR in another (proxy) contract? [36:05]

  • This was a concern brought up internally to the Foundation as well, there should be alternatives available for voting to reduce the risk here

Proposals are rigorously vetted so MKR holders won’t be voting on completely subjective aspects [38:40]

Is there a better way to engage and inform MKR token holders? [39:08]

  • Currently leveraging social media and chats
  • Would a dedicated portal be necessary to stay informed and engaged

What does the outcome look like if there are MKR holders waiting to the last minute to stack a vote in a potentially different direction? [44:06]

  • Need to ponder this

It would be great to get push notifications on some sort. Scuttlebutt or otherwise [45:30]

What will the initial risk teams/constructs/proposals look like? How will they be formed? Who is checking their work? [47:03]

  • The internal risk team is looking to provide a template for future teams
  • The third part of the governance framework will include models for calculating the risk parameters
  • It will include initial models and examples that the community can consider and improve upon
  • The risk function can be performed as a network of independent entity, per say