---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'MIP100: Stable Asset Allocation Framework'
tags: [Summaries]

---

---
tags: Summaries
---

# MIP100: Stable Asset Allocation Framework

This is a summary of the contents of this subproposal and its impact from GovAlpha's perspective:

- This is a valid MIP eligible to enter the March Governance Cycle.
- Stable Assets refer to any asset that is designed to have a fixed Net Asset Value (NAV) or market price in US dollar terms, e.g., cash, USD stablecoins, government securities, etc.
- The MIP defines a "favored status" for Stable Assets. To qualify as a favored-status asset, the following conditions must be satisfied: 
    - The asset must receive a positive assessment from an external professional ratings agency.
    - Competitive incentives must be offered to Maker for holding the asset.
    - Incentive payouts must be made on all of the assets if Maker holds over 100M DAI worth of the asset. 
    - Incentive payouts must occur at least once a month, ideally more frequently.
    - The assets must remain in a PSM or other structure where Maker Governance has full control over it.
- Aside from some exceptions, the protocol cannot hold over 100M DAI of any single non-favored-status stable asset.
- This proposal has been assigned `High-Impact` based on the methodology listed [here](https://manual.makerdao.com/governance/off-chain/impact-estimations).

***Disclaimer: These summaries are intended to be a guide and not a source of truth. You remain responsible for any actions you take on the grounds of this information. Please note the date when the summary was last updated to judge accuracy.***

*Updated 2023-01-30*

Points to review w/Author:
   - Incentive payouts must be made on all of the assets, if over 100M DAI worth of the asset is held by Maker. ### Note for MIP Editors: Original MIP should state this point in clearer language ###
- Aside from some exceptions, the protocol cannot hold over 100M DAI of any single non-favored-status stable asset. ### Note for MIP editors: Maybe this should be stated in terms of debt ceilings for clarity? ###