After several rounds of voting and heated debate, the final vote on Maker User Compensation (MKR) failed, which became “unfair” during the March incident.

Nearly 52,500 MKR voted against compensation, which accounted for 65% of the total vote. This represents around 8% of the total supply of MKR, which some commentators have taken as a sign of declining uptake.

However, the Maker Community membership bid, which was part of the working group that developed the compensation proposal, told Cointelegraph that that’s “too many to vote for.” He said fewer than 40,000 tokens usually take part in the surveys.

The results of the vote were somewhat unexpected, as a similar vote taken just three weeks after the crash gave the opposite result – 65,000 NOK, which is 65% of the vote for compensation.

While another survey with fewer respondents gave a negative result, the working group still had the drive to keep going because of the first survey.

Monetsupply identified three main reasons why they felt the vote failed. The first question in principle is whether the owners of storage facilities should be compensated at all. “There are strong arguments for or against,” they said.

The discussion can be summed up in two ideas: One argues that even if it is not a technical hack, the system is still imperfectly functioning, and the risk has not been properly detected, so the victims must be compensated. According to another view, Maker makes no guarantees of a safety return, since the auction system is based on market incentives – if the market is ineffective at some point, the product environment should not be held responsible.

While Monetsupply did not express her opinion, she believes that some may have misunderstood the settlement system:

“I think safes have unrealistic expectations of how much they will be recalled in the case of a black swan. Maker has an hourly response time at Oracle distributes the lockers by letting them maintain storage at the expense of the low impact. But the downside is that if the price drops during that hour, when Finally, the treasury closes, the price will be lower, so the treasury will have less safety. ”
However, Monetsupply believes that even those who were in favor of repayment of loans had weight against two other arguments. The first is a shift in responsibility, as many in the community have come to the conclusion that the risk of liquidation has not been properly explained in the Oasis interface maintained by the Maker Foundation.

“As such, some MKR holders may have felt no obligation to pay, despite their sympathy for the vaults,” Monetsupply added.

Other aggravating circumstances include the class-action lawsuits brought by victims of the liquidation against the Maker:

“If MakerDAO agreed to indemnify, what would prevent the coffers from accepting this money while participating in the Maker Foundation’s suit?”
However, Monetsupply complained about a certain lack of transparency in Maker management. Unlike some newer systems like Compound, there are no indications of who is behind a particular MKR title.

“It is very difficult to read a room with unknown voters,” they said. They concluded that although they did not advocate de-anonymity, to follow the governor more effectively through the proposal and protocol to understand where the force is, “would be very interesting.”

Source: CoinTelegraph

LEAVE A REPLY