---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'Episode #202: August 4, 2022'
tags: [G&R]

---

---
tags: G&R
---

# Episode #202: August 4, 2022

## Agenda

- [00:00](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY): Introduction
- [01:55](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=115): Votes and Polls
- [04:56](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=296): MIPs Update
- [10:30](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=630): Weekly Forum Recap
- [16:31](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=991): Discussion: _MIPs 77, 78, & 79: Delegate Comp_
- [56:01](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=3361): Discussion: _RWF Split into RWF0x & RWF-001_ 
- [1:13:07](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=4387): Conclusion

## Video

[Link](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY)

## General Updates

### Votes

#### Prose11

![](https://i.imgur.com/4zHs1Jt.png)

> *Polls:* -- [03:05](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=185)
> *Executive Votes:* -- [03:56](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=236)

### MIPs

#### Gala

[05:03](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=303)

[Weekly MIPs Update #98](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/weekly-mips-update-98/16940)

![](https://i.imgur.com/83qC7hn.png)

> - _August's Formal Submissions_ -- [05:13](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=313)
> - _Core Unit Budgets_ -- [05:53](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=353)
> - _Core Unit Offboarding_ -- [06:35](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=395)
> - _Amendments_ -- [06:53](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=413)
> - _Proposals in RFC_ -- [07:06](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=426)
> - _MIPs Sets_ -- [07:12](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=432)
> - _Core Unit Onboardings_ -- [07:48](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=468)
> - _Top-Level MIPs_ -- [08:29](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=509)
> - _Core Unit Offboardings_ -- [08:39](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=519)
> - _Facilitator Onboardings_ -- [08:55](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=535)
> - _Amendments_ -- [09:07](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=547)

> :mag_right: *August's Ratification Polls will go up on Monday 8<sup>th</sup>.* New proposals aiming to enter September's Governance Cycle should be posted by August 10<sup>th</sup>.

### Weekly Forum Recap

#### Artem_Gordon

[10:30](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=630)

_Post:_ [Weekly Forum Recap July 28<sup>th</sup> - August 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2022](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/weekly-forum-recap/16247/9)

- _**News & Announcements:**_
    - [Governance house is becoming part of the Llama!](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/governance-house-is-becoming-part-of-the-llama/16902)
    - [2022-08-02 Governance Poll Clarification](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/2022-08-02-governance-poll-clarification/16952)
    - [Permissionless Bridge Deployment: Arbitrum Nova](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/permissionless-bridge-deployment-arbitrum-nova/16956)
- _**Signal Requests:**_
    - [Update 6S Vault Parameter to Appropriate Applicable Rate](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/signal-request-update-6s-vault-parameter-to-appropriate-applicable-rate/16861)

## Discussion

### [MIPs 77, 78, & 79: Delegate Comp](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=1006)

#### Prose11

![](https://i.imgur.com/bOcbQd3.png)
> - _Problems with Current System_ -- [17:12](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=1032)
> - _Key Features_ -- [19:43](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=1183)
> - _Solutions_ -- [22:22](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=1342)
> - _Discussion Topics_ -- [23:58](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=1438)

#### Q&A

[24:41](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=1481)

- **MakerMan:** One of my issues--one, I believe, the DAO will end up having to deal with--is the self-nomination or self-election of Delegates. There is no nomination nor an election process. 
    - Conceptually, if you can self-elect or self-appoint and back yourself with MKR, Maker could end up hosting 50 to 100 delegates with various ranges of MKR--you can decide in the end whether that is good or bad--. 
        - There should be some element of a nomination and election process and a fixed number of seats to encourage real competition versus trying to compete for MKR without much communication.

[26:09](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=1569)

- **CodeKnight:** In [MIP79](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip79-recognized-delegate-mkr-compensation/16907), there is a section on retroactive MKR vesting--with which some of the current Delegates will be receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of MKR--that seems like a conflict of interest that would push many people to abstain. What are your thoughts on that?

[30:16](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=1816)

- **Chris:** I have not seen any rationale behind the numbers, as far as the 300K cap and the matching amount in MKR. Can anybody chime in regarding how you reached those numbers and how they are justified?

[34:44](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=2084)

- **MakerMan:** _Continues discussion about compensation._

[38:04](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=2284)

- **teej:** Unless I misunderstood the proposal, I do not see what we are losing here: If you are upping the pay, and it brings you a wider pool of parties interested in being Delegates for MakerDAO, then, ultimately, it is up to the now broader range of them to attract MKR to their platforms. Is this not just a more effective and extensive meritocracy?

[40:14](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=2414)

- **Puncar:** It is hard for just one person to understand and manage everything. Counting on more resources to increase, for example, the pay, could mean that more people would be able to assist Delegates in their day-to-day tasks and advice them on the subjects where they might be lacking experience or expertise. Incorporating specialized assistance for our Delegates could prove to be an improvement in Governance.

[41:56](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=2516)

- **CodeKnight:** One thing to keep in context is that the job is unstable. If you can get an expert to join for 300K a year, but, at any point, a MKR Holder can decide to un-delegate their MKR, that will be a factor for them to consider. 
    - If we could provide stability, that could be a counterbalancing point to compensation. As is, people have to evaluate: if I do this full-time, is it worth the risks? 

[44:09](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=2649)

- **JustinCase:** This is a question for GovAlpha, regarding raising the maximum cap: Not that long ago, there were maybe three Delegates that decided which way the votes were going. We should be mindful of the dangers of concentrating voting power. Have you considered the effects of the concentration of Delegates? 

[47:19](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=2839)

- **Davidutro:** We want to attract a higher tier of Delegates, and we are doing that with higher comp. Is there any work on the other side, creating job descriptions for Delegates we want to attract? For example: If we were looking for a legal expert with 20 years of experience in any specialty, can we create a dedicated pay opportunity for that specific job description?

[48:55](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=2935)

- **Juan:** _Adds thoughts on raising the Delegate cap._

[50:31](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=3031)

- **MakerMan:** _Adds thoughts on job stability and compensation._ 

## Discussion

### [RWF Split into RWF0x & RWF-001](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=3361)

#### Prose11

![](https://i.imgur.com/B6dJwJg.png)

> - [_Forum Post_ -- _MIP41c4-SP39: RWF-0x Core Unit Facilitator Onboarding_](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip41c4-sp39-rwf-0x-core-unit-facilitator-onboarding/16969)
> - [_Forum Post_ -- _MIP40c3-SP78: RWF-0x Budget Proposal through 2022_](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip40c3-sp78-rwf-0x-budget-proposal-through-2022/16968)
> - [_Forum Post_ -- _MIP39c2-SP34: Creating RWF0x from a Split of RWF-001_](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip39c2-sp34-creating-rwf0x-from-a-split-of-rwf-001/16967/12)


#### Q&A

[57:24](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=3444)

- **MakerMan:** At the Delegate meeting, there was no consensus but support. We needed to hear from Will and know where he stood on this. 
    - Maker has a Real World Finance Facilitator, and while there have been some newsworthy activities that the people involved have come forward to discuss, we still do not have a formal word from him, as far as I know. 
    - The topic of discussion is _when_ we expect to hear from Will on what happened with this Core Unit to make a decision.
    - Simultaneously, we have asset originators or asset origination on the table because of what happened. I do not know how to address that issue without Will's report.

[59:59](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=3599)

- **monkey.irish:** My main concern is business continuity. We have work that is currently in the pipeline. We have deals underway, and the RWF0x members have been working on them. Will can speak for himself whenever he appears. But for me, it is more about keeping business as usual. 
    - I have a list of items from the RWF0x team that are currently work in progress. We need to take action in the near term, and I would highly recommend the community to do so to continue to move forward with this work.
        - Anyone can act as a contractor inside the DAO, and any Core Unit could pay said contractor. CES is willing to hire the RWF0x members--provided a budgeting discussion for the additional compensation--for business continuity and to help us complete this work. 
-  Another concern is that even if we hire a new team, there will still be a transition period. I have never known any team to come in and be productive on day one. We will have a transitionary period for the new team to warm up to the old work.

[1:04:32](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=3872)

- **CodeKnight:** _Continues discussion on possible solutions to ensure continuity._

[1:06:28](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=3988)

- **JustinCase:** Let us address the question: How long are we willing to wait to have both sides of the story? 
    - I do not believe we should go more than a week from this point before we decide on the general direction where we go. 
    - We have counterparties; this is not only a strict Protocol issue; this involves many other actors. And it also puts our reputation at stake. 
        - One of our key advantages over other DeFi protocols is a rock-solid reputation. We start messing with that, we give it away.

[1:07:50](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=4070)

- **Eric:**  I understand no one else has spoken for RWF, so I will. Although, I am not sure what to tell you. Let me lay out the timing: 
    - The three of us worked under Will since January. We worked well together, but it was not ideal with Will. Nonetheless, we have done good work as a group. 
    - A couple of weeks ago, Christian--our attorney and partner--got to a point where he lost confidence in Will and did not want to work with him anymore. He felt like he was being set up to fail. And I have to admit: TJ and I will concur. 
    - The three of us like Maker. We were the ones who have done HVB and SocGen to the 99%. We want to continue. We talked to Will about it, and we discussed how we were not comfortable. 
        - Then, Will posted in the Forum that we were going in different directions without talking to us. We tried to work out an agreement, and we proposed to split and go separate ways. He never responded. Yesterday, he terminated us all in an email. 
- It is a sequence of events. It is hard to know what to do. But we know we have done plenty of good work and want to do more innovation and keep going forward. There are more promising RWAs to go.
    - I am not sure what else to tell you. I understand that you want to talk to Will. There are many questions I think you should ask him. I am not aligned with him, so I can not speak on his behalf. 
    - I dread that you have to deal with this headache, but it is what it is.

[1:11:06](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=4266)

- **Juan:** One of the things we were saying is that we do not need more RWF, or at least not for now unless it is for research. Then, yes, potentially, MKR Holders gave Will that mission. It is his Core Unit, his mandate. 
    - His team has the right to try to create another Core Unit, and that is an option open to anyone. Anyone can propose a Core Unit. 
        - With that in mind, I think it is important to respect what Will wants. On the other hand, if someone wants to propose bringing him down with an offboarding, we can do that too. But that is not the current discussion. What he does with his CU belongs to him. 
- I wanted to shill the SES update tomorrow: We will discuss how Maker should move into project-based budgeting instead of the CU-based budgeting, which brings all this drama forward without creating value.

## Conclusion

#### Prose11

[1:13:07](https://youtu.be/Zk_tCIV7ItY?t=4387)

![](https://i.imgur.com/UcAhMBb.png)

[Suggestion Box](https://app.suggestionox.com/r/GovCallQs)

## Credits

- Constanza produced this summary.
- Artem Gordon produced this summary.
- Everyone who spoke and presented on the call.
