Maker (MKR) token holders are responsible for maintaining the security of the Maker Protcol.
This means addressing risks associated with the correct and secure functioning of the Maker Protocol. These risks may include:
- Technical issues with smart contract implementation
- Issues with oracles
- Crypto-economic governance attacks from malicious MKR token holders.
It is also important for the governance community to consider the risks to the Maker Protocol that are inherited from the Ethereum blockchain itself.
As Ethereum develops and evolves, MKR token holders will need to discuss and manage this inherited risk.
Some risks cannot be eliminated and must instead be managed.
Rapid decreases in the value of collateral is the primary operational risk to the Maker Protocol. This would lead to under-collateralization of the Maker Protocol and a collapse in the value of Dai.
This risk is balanced by the collection of the Vault Fees from borrowers using the Maker Protocol.
Effective governance and risk management of the Maker Protocol is essential to its continued operation. These duties must involve human input and can not be automated through smart contracts.
MKR token holders attempt to build structures and processes to allow governance and management to occur in an efficient, decentralized, and secure way.
The structure of MakerDAO is dynamic and has not yet been fully defined.
What is the best way to ensure the growth of the Maker Protocol? Growth of the Maker Protocol is always a major topic of discussion.
MKR token holders aim to increase the value of their tokens.
To maximise the value of the MKR token in the next week, they could raise stability fees to insane levels and use the income to burn MKR but this would mean putting short-term profits ahead of long-term profits.
Those short term profits aren’t sacrificed without cause, they are sacrificed to gain value in the future, but what is the best way to ensure future value?
Development of the protocol is currently on-going and the responsibility to approve upgrades falls directly to MKR token holders.
MKR token holders must adequately discuss and critique any future protocol upgrades to ensure that they will result in further value accruing to MKR, rather than putting what value the token already holds at risk.
Effective tooling is essential to support effective decision making.
MKR token holders to have access to as much information as possible when making decisions about the Maker Protocol and the importance of access to accurate information can’t be underestimated.
Due to the implementation of multi-collateral Dai (MCD) and the Dai Savings Rate (DSR), the Maker Protocol may run with a net-negative income during normal operations (without liquidations).
MKR token holders now need to be aware of the income and expenditures accrued by the Maker Protocol. As MakerDAO matures, these expenses are likely to increase as the DAO takes over payment of oracles and starts funding domain teams to fill the various roles that the Maker Foundation has been funding until now.
The balance of income versus expenditures leads to MKR either being burned or minted. The desire to burn MKR will should be weighed against the desire for growth and organisational and management expenses accrued by MakerDAO.
This balance is already starting to feature prominently in governance discussions and this will only continue in the future.
The expansion of MakerDAO and eventual shutdown of the Maker Foundation will likely result in MakerDAO directly employing personnel to fulfil roles that cannot be automated using smart contracts.
With employees come questions regarding fair and equitable remuneration, employment policies and the associated bureaucracy.
No matter the role - whether full domain teams, or individuals or groups currently paid through the Maker Foundation’s grants program - entities contributing time and resources towards MakerDAO should be incentivised to continue their activities.
How this remuneration is handled and how far the remuneration should extend are open questions.