There are no formal governance updates this week. Instead, we will look into the various polling mechanisms across the protocols we are tracking (Quorum Votes, Ratification Polls, and Temperature Checks).
Created: July 7th, 2022
Passed: Not yet,11K AAVE For,130 AAVE More discussion needed,5 Against
What does it do: Updates voting thresholds and requirements for Level 2 governance decisions.
Current thresholds and requirements:
Delay - 7 Days
Grace Period - 5 Days
Threshold - 2%
Duration - 10 days
Differential - 15%
Quorum - 20%
Proposed thresholds and requirements:
Delay - 1 Day
Grace Period - No Change
Threshold - 1%
Duration - No Change
Differential - 7%
Quorum - 7%
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 would require a 13% vote of the total voting-eligible tokens in favor. Strict guidelines can limit protocol growth as development continues.
Takeaway: Even Aave companies have come forth in support, and it is well understood that Level 2 governance requirements need to be updated. This will either move to the next stage or be returned to the community for further diligence and discussion.
Ratification Poll: MIP41c4-SP37: Governance Facilitator Onboarding (GOV-001)
Created: July 11th, 2022
Passed: Yes,119K MKR For,
What does it do: This ratification poll onboards a new Facilitator for the GovAlpha (Gov-001) Core Unit.
Why: A Ratification Poll is a sub-proposal process for Core Units. It requires only 10K MKR in support and allows a level of operational autonomy within Maker DAO Core Units. Patrick J. has been a GovAlpha part-time contributor since June 2021 and has authored six MIPs. His depth of experience and proven track record working with Maker is apparent from his contributions.
Takeaway: There is outstanding community support for this Core Unit ratification poll to onboard Patrick J as a facilitator. We look forward to seeing your continued contributions, Good luck Patrick!
Temperature Check: "Fee switch" activation for ETH/USDC & USDC/USDT
Created: July 19th, 2022
Passed: Yes,3.5M UNI For, 54 Against
What does it do: Gauges community sentiment regarding whether the “fee switch” should be turned on. It proposes to initially apply two of Uniswap’s largest pools - one with a stable to stable pairing and the other with a stable to volatile pairing.
Why: The “fee switch” enables the ability for Uniswap to retain a portion of what is already being paid to liquidity providers. The retained funds can then be used to build or fund new tools for UNI token holders to leverage in growing the protocol. There is the possibility that some of the retained tokens could be paid to UNI token holders as well.
Takeaway: The fee switch hasn’t been tried and tested - this change would help provide real data and give the community more time to debate on how funds accrued should be utilised. Applying only to those two pools initially, the mechanism is expected to generate $20-$40k per day.
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.
Found this research useful? Connect with the Consensys Cryptoeconomic Research team at [email protected]
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.