Ratification Poll: Endgame Prelaunch MIP Set
Created: October 10th, 2022
Passed: Not yet but looking likely,88K MKR for
What does it do: Establishes community support for 2 MIPs and 6 sub-proposals.
MIP83: Recognized launch MetaDAO clusters
What does it do: This enables groups within the core units to begin preparations to restructure as MetaDAOs.
Why: A MetaDAO is an operating function in the protocol that operates with a degree of autonomy. Referred to in the Endgame plan as a de-risked form of scaling the Decentralized Workforce.
MIP84: Activate Protocol-Owned Vault Emulation
What does it do: Activates the preliminary implementation of the Protocol-Owned Vault, using the Protocol-Owned Vault Emulation (POVE) approach which uses a non-standard configuration of the existing Maker Protocol to achieve the effects of a Protocol-Owned Vault.
Why: The Protocol-Owned Vault is a key element of the Endgame Plan that is described as a tool to achieve real resilience and decentralization by increasing the amount of Dai backed by staked ETH.
MIP1c4-SP1: Subproposal for changing the problem space
What does it do: The updated mandate is written with a new approach where the critical element of the mandate explicitly and directly impacts Facilitator Governance Powers provided upfront.
Why: Provides clarity around when Maker Governance starts slowing down and not inviting proposals.
MIP4c2-SP27: MIP16 amendment subproposal
What does it do: Amends the MIP to become compatible with the Endgame.
Why: Prevents Signal Requests (non-standard weekly polls) from dominating the governance landscape.
MIP39c2-SP35: Modifying risk core unit mandate - RISK-001
What does it do: The updated mandate is written with a new approach where the critical element of the mandate explicitly and directly impacts Facilitator Governance Powers.
Why: Clears up governance privileges the core unit facilitator will have regarding proposing non-standard weekly polls as defined in MIP16.
MIP39c2-SP36: Modifying strategic finance core unit mandate (SF-001)
What does it do: The updated mandate is written with a new approach where the critical element of the mandate explicitly and directly impacts Facilitator Governance Powers.
Why: Clears up governance privileges the core unit facilitator will have regarding proposing non-standard weekly polls as defined in MIP16.
MIP39c2-SP37: Modifying collateral engineering services core unit mandate
What does it do: The updated mandate is written with a new approach where the critical element of the mandate explicitly and directly impacts Facilitator Governance Powers.
Why: Clears up governance privileges the core unit facilitator will have regarding proposing non-standard weekly polls as defined in MIP16.
Takeaway: MakerDAO is moving forward with preparation for the Endgame plan. This MIP set is the first of many to introduce a more decentralized structure to the protocol.
Ratification Poll: Coinbase USDC Institutional Rewards
Created: October 10th, 2022
Passed: Not yet but looking likely,53K MKR for
What does it do: Outlines the terms for reward calculation and the process for payment to MakerDAO through 2022.
Why: MakerDAO requested that collateral assets be deployed that incorporate safety, cost structure, and flexibility. This includes Maker paying zero custody fees, reward schedules, and basis points collected on the arrangement.
Takeaway: Maker continues to work on MIP 81 with Coinbase to ensure community benefit.
Updates on Prior Coverage
Ratification Poll: PPG – Open Market Committee Proposal Approved with 88K MKR
Executive Proposal: Monetalis Clydesdale (RWA007-A) Onboarding, Funding Ambassador Program SPF, Core Unit MKR Streams Approved with 52K MRK
On-chain Vote: Aave Governance. Adjust Level 2 requirements (long-executor)
Created: October 7th, 2022
Passed: Not yet but looking likely2.77K AAVE For,What does it do: Updates voting thresholds and requirements for Level 2 governance decisions. The changes include:
Quorum of Level 2 Executor changes from 20% to 6.5%
Vote differential of Level 2 Executor changes from 15% to 6.5%
Proposition power required for Level 2 proposal changes from 2% to 1.25%.
A delay of 7200 blocks is added between proposal creation and vote start. 1 day considering 12 seconds/block.
Why: Level 2 decisions are considered critical to maintaining the operational safety of the protocol and include decisions on the AAVE token, safety module, and governance. Currently, Level 2 passing requirements take a material amount of time and total voting-eligible tokens to pass. Strict guidelines can limit protocol growth as development continues.
Takeaway: Even Aave companies have come forth in support, and it is widely understood that Level 2 governance requirements need to be updated.
Updates on Prior Coverage
Temperature Check: Chaos Labs <> Aave passed with 650K AAVE
Updates on Prior Coverage
Temperature Check: Improve Governance with Commonwealth Approved with 100K Comp
Updates on Prior Coverage
Proposal: Increase BTC Futures Market Max Open Interest Approved with 7/7 SNX-SCT
Sushiswap
Uniswap
Compound
Synthetix
Lido
Cryptofunds, market makers, and trading desks can interact with these DeFi protocols with MetaMask Institutional
MetaMask Institutional offers unrivaled access to the DeFi ecosystem without compromising on institution-required security, operational efficiency, or compliance requirements. We enable funds to trade, stake, borrow, lend, invest, and interact with over 17,000 DeFi protocols and applications.
Learn more about MetaMask Institutional
Found this research useful? Connect with the Consensys Cryptoeconomic Research team at [email protected]
Return to the Cryptoeconomic Research Library
Disclaimer: Consensys Software Inc. is not a registered or licensed advisor or broker. This report is for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute or contain any individual investment advice and is made without any regard to the recipient’s objectives, financial situation, or means. It is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy, any token or other investment, nor is it intended to be used for marketing purposes to anyone in any jurisdiction. Consensys does not intend for any person or entity to rely on any facts, opinions, or ideas, and any financial or economic commentary expressed in this report may not be relied upon. Consensys makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information or opinions in this report and, along with its employees, does not assume any responsibility for any loss to any person or entity that may result from any act or omission based upon this report. This report is subject to correction, completion, and amendment without notice; however, Consensys has no obligation to do so.