GuShiio.com MakerDAO quickly passed a proposal without any warning. The proposal to “strengthen protocol security and response speed by adjusting LSE-MKR-A risk parameters and shortening GSM Pause Delay” not only significantly increases the borrowing limit of MKR tokens, but also significantly reduces mortgage requirements.
Author: Three Sigma PaperImperium
Compiled by: Shenzhen, PANews
A sudden “emergency governance proposal” appeared recently in MakerDAO. Without any warning, the proposal quickly entered the voting process and was passed (but it is still in the time-locked stage). The proposal not only significantly increases the borrowing limit for MKR tokens, but also significantly reduces mortgage requirements, raising widespread questions in the community about governance transparency and fairness.
Key points of the proposal: Comprehensive adjustment from debt ceiling to mortgage ratio
According to the forum’s announcement LSE-MKR-A Risk Parameter Change, the core contents of the proposal include:
· Maximum debt ceiling (line): Increase from 20 million USDS to 45 million USDS
· Target available debt (gap): Increase from 5 million USDS to 45 million USDS
· Debt ceiling increase cooling down time (ttl): Shortened from 16 hours to 30 minutes
· : Increase from 12% to 20%
· Liquidation ratio: From 200% to 125%
· Exit Fee: From 5% to 0%
In addition, the proposal will also GSM Pause Delay(Suspension delay) has been reduced from the original 30 hours to 18 hours, which means that the response time for contract execution will be further shortened at the governance level in the future.
These parameter adjustments essentially allow MKR tokens to be used as collateral to obtain a higher borrowing amount (more than twice the previous amount) and allow higher leverage (the mortgage ratio is reduced from 200% to 125%). At the same time, the liquidation penalty was also reduced to 0%, significantly reducing the cost of being liquidated.
Official statement: Does prevention of governance attacks really exist?
Defensive Reason Vs. Fuzzy Attack Vector
Both the sponsors of the proposal and some official channels attribute the urgency of the proposal to “prevent potential governance attacks.” However, several community members, including PaperImperium, pointed out that no known and specific attacks were found. There are still many doubts in the community about whether the proposal can truly withstand so-called “governance attacks” and whether there are deeper motivations.
Skeptics banned
The most controversial thing is that during the voting period, the accounts of many users and organizations (such as GFX Labs) who held opposing or questioning positions were banned or blocked in official channels such as Discord and forums. PaperImperium said that its personal Discord account and GFX Labs forum account also encountered bans during this period, and doubts were difficult to continue to ferment through official channels.
Multiple perspectives: Who is benefiting and who is questioning?
Short-term beneficiaries: high leverage and high liquidity
· Large households or institutions
With this proposal, users with large MKR holdings can more easily lend more USDS from the Maker agreement, while the reduction in mortgage ratios will allow them to gain higher leverage with less capital.
· High-risk speculators
For traders willing to take on higher risks, lower clearing penalties and higher leverage space undoubtedly provide more room for maneuver.
Long-term risks: potential impacts on governance and financial security
· Governance concentration and transparency
In the absence of clear evidence of attack, bypassing regular processes and passing proposals quickly inevitably raises questions about whether minority interest groups are exercising excessive power.
· Increased systemic risks
Significantly reducing the liquidation ratio and raising the debt ceiling means that the system is more prone to chain reactions under high leverage when the market fluctuates.
· Community trust is shaken
The silence of skeptics and the lack of adequate justification for emergency measures will pose a potential blow to MakerDAO’s reputation for decentralized governance.
Multiple motivations behind the emergency proposal
PaperImperium pointed out that some MKR holders have recently been dissatisfied with the development direction, profit sources and community governance methods of MakerDAO and have called for reform. Whether this proposal can be related to these internal demands is still a focus worth exploring.
· Internal reform demands
Against the background of “weak growth and declining profits”, some MKR holders hope to promote changes in the agreement and improve the efficiency of capital utilization.
· Governing factional disputes
Different interest groups have different demands at the governance level, and using emergency proposals to quickly advance certain changes may be a means of competing for the direction of the agreement.
· External defense or internal operations
The term “governance attack” is not uncommon in the DeFi circle, but actual implementation often requires obvious on-chain evidence; and the lack of conclusive evidence this time also raises vigilance about the possibility of “internal manipulation.”
Future outlook: Where does MakerDAO go?
The impact of MakerDAO’s emergency governance proposal is not limited to the parameter adjustment itself. The far-reaching significance lies in the interrogation of the decentralized governance model. Currently, the community is paying special attention to the following issues:
1. Improvement of governance processes
How to ensure that subsequent major proposals follow a more transparent and democratic process, rather than bypassing community consensus in the name of “urgency”?
2. Information disclosure and supervision
Can the disclosure of specific details of “potential attacks” and the interpretation and handling of banned users be given reasonable explanations to maintain community trust in governance?
3. Balance between decentralization and efficiency
Decentralized governance is often inefficient, but an overly centralized decision-making model can lead to abuse of power. How to find the best balance between the two will become the core challenge for MakerDAO.
Conclusion: Be wary of black boxes and return to community consensus
The “Emergency Governance Proposal” is like a demon mirror, allowing us to see the most important aspect of the DeFi ecosystem: Can the governance mechanism truly withstand the test when external or internal pressures arise? As a pioneer in the DeFi field, MakerDAO has a warning significance for the entire industry.
Perhaps as community critics say, without clear and transparent governance processes and public verifiable evidence of attacks, any “emergency” may become a tool of power for a few. Only by ensuring smooth channels for community dialogue and establishing a sound governance mechanism can MakerDAO truly move towards a healthy and sustainable development path.
原文链接
