Author: Three Sigma & PaperImperium
Compiled by: Shenzhen, PANews
Recently, MakerDAO has introduced a sudden "emergency governance proposal" that quickly entered the voting process without any prior warning and has been passed (but is still in the time-lock phase). This proposal not only significantly increases the borrowing limit for MKR tokens but also substantially lowers the collateral requirements, raising widespread concerns within the community about governance transparency and fairness.
Proposal Highlights: Comprehensive Adjustments from Debt Limits to Collateral Ratios
According to the LSE-MKR-A Risk Parameter Changes published on the forum, the core content of the proposal includes:
• Maximum Debt Limit (line)
Increased from 25 million USDS to 45 million USDS
• Target Available Debt (gap)
Increased from 5 million USDS to 45 million USDS in one go
• Debt Limit Increase Cooldown Time (ttl)
Reduced from 36 hours to 20 hours
• Stability Fee
Increased from 12% to 20%
• Liquidation Ratio
Significantly reduced from 200% to 125%
• Liquidation Penalty
Reduced from 5% to 0%
Additionally, the proposal will reduce the GSM Pause Delay from the original 30 hours to 18 hours, meaning that in the future, the response time for contract execution at the governance level will be further shortened.
These parameter adjustments effectively allow MKR tokens to obtain a higher borrowing limit (over twice the previous amount) when used as collateral and permit higher leverage (collateral ratio reduced from 200% to 125%). At the same time, the liquidation penalty has also been lowered to 0%, significantly reducing the cost of liquidation.
Official Statement: Is There Really a Need to Prevent Governance Attacks?
Defensive Reasons vs. Ambiguous Attack Vectors
Both the proposal initiators and some official channels attribute the urgency of this proposal to "prevent potential governance attacks." However, several community members, including PaperImperium, have pointed out that no known or ongoing specific attack actions have been identified. There are still many doubts within the community about whether this proposal can truly defend against so-called "governance attacks" and whether there are deeper motivations behind it.
Critics Facing Bans
The most controversial aspect is that during the voting period, several users and institutions (such as GFX Labs) who held opposing or questioning positions had their accounts muted or banned on official channels like Discord and the forum. PaperImperium stated that both their personal Discord account and GFX Labs' forum account also faced muting during this period, making it difficult for dissenting voices to continue to resonate on official channels.
Multiple Perspectives: Who Benefits and Who Questions?
Short-term Beneficiaries: High Leverage and High Liquidity
• Whales or Institutions
With this proposal, large holders of MKR can more easily borrow more USDS from the Maker protocol, while the reduced collateral ratio allows them to achieve higher leverage with less capital.
• High-risk Speculators
For traders willing to take on higher risks, the lower liquidation penalty and increased leverage space undoubtedly provide more operational flexibility.
Long-term Risks: Potential Impacts on Governance and Financial Security
• Governance Concentration and Transparency
In the absence of clear evidence of an attack, bypassing conventional processes and quickly passing the proposal inevitably raises questions about whether a minority of interest groups are exercising excessive power.
• Increased Systemic Risk
Significantly lowering the liquidation ratio and raising the debt limit means that the system is more likely to experience chain reactions under high leverage during market fluctuations.
• Erosion of Community Trust
The banning of critics and the lack of sufficient justification for emergency measures could potentially damage MakerDAO's reputation for decentralized governance.
Multiple Motivations Behind the Emergency Proposal
PaperImperium pointed out that some MKR holders have recently expressed dissatisfaction with MakerDAO's development direction, profit sources, and community governance methods, calling for reforms. Whether this proposal is related to these internal demands remains a key point of discussion.
• Internal Reform Demands
Against the backdrop of "stagnant growth and declining profits," some MKR holders hope to push for protocol changes to improve capital utilization efficiency.
• Factional Struggles in Governance
Different interest groups have varying 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 protocol.
• External Defense or Internal Manipulation
The notion of "governance attacks" is not uncommon in the DeFi space, but actual implementation often requires clear on-chain evidence; the lack of conclusive evidence this time has raised concerns about the possibility of "internal manipulation."
Future Outlook: Where Does MakerDAO Go from Here?
The impact of this emergency governance proposal from MakerDAO is not limited to the parameter adjustments themselves; its deeper significance lies in questioning the decentralized governance model. Currently, the community is particularly focused on the following issues:
- Improvement of Governance Processes
How to ensure that future major proposals follow a more transparent and democratic process, rather than bypassing community consensus under the guise of "emergency"?
- Information Disclosure and Oversight
Can reasonable explanations be provided for the disclosure of specific details about "potential attacks" and the treatment of muted users to maintain community trust in governance?
- Balancing Decentralization and Efficiency
Decentralized governance often has lower efficiency, but overly centralized decision-making can lead to power abuse. Finding the best balance between the two will be a core challenge for MakerDAO.
Conclusion: Beware of Governance Black Boxes, Return to Community Consensus
The "emergency governance proposal" serves as a mirror, reflecting one of the most pressing issues in the DeFi ecosystem: when external or internal pressures arise, can the governance mechanism truly withstand the test? As a pioneer in the DeFi space, the reflections brought about by this incident for MakerDAO hold cautionary significance for the entire industry.
Perhaps, as community critics have said, without a clear and transparent governance process and publicly verifiable evidence of attacks, any "emergency" could become a tool for the power of a few. Only by ensuring open channels for community dialogue and establishing a sound governance mechanism can MakerDAO truly embark on a path of healthy and sustainable development.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
