Maker (MKR) price, performance and general information

How far off are we from having tokenized home equity(similar to a HELOC) as collateral for a CDP? What would be the in-between infrastructure that needs to be built to get to this point? I would like to start working on it.

In our most recent Governance and Risk call we had a very lively dialogue about the Stability Fee. Particularly in relation to what it’s for, how it works, when the community should change it, and by how much.

We were a bit taken aback by the level of community interest (the call was standing room only for the last 30 minutes) so this might be a good time to start creating some continuity in our discussions and start gathering some of the wisdom of our crowd.

Here is a list of some of the questions and proposals that arose during the call. We’ll be collecting the results of the feedback we get in this thread to seed the next discussion on the 24th.

Questions Raised

• What is/are the canonical point(s) of reference for the exchange price of Dai?
• How do we know whether there is a supply and demand imbalance?
• How can we reliably determine whether a prop desk or market making organization is facing an inventory challenge?
• How do we react to these imbalances?
• Do we alter the SF in increments over a predictable amount of time?
• At what percentage of drift from the peg do we begin to initiate the governance process to exercise the SF policy tool?
• Where can we find clean and trustworthy data on which to base our models?
• How can we tell authoritatively that the SF change was responsible for correcting the supply?
• What are the appropriate models to use to anticipate the results of SF changes?
• What is the SF for exactly? What shouldn’t it be used for?
• How does the wider community interact with and inform the activities of the Risk Teams?
• Should we create a feedback mechanism to manage small movements of the stability fee? Are there risks?
• How do we better communicate that the SF is a variable rate?

Suggestions Proposed

• If MakerDAO is a credit facility it must ensure that the SF remains competitive. This provides an upper bound on the rate.
• We need to ensure that the negative effects of SF variation are compensated with by producing a more stable peg.
• Any updates we make to the SF must take into account the size of the change as well as the frequency.
• The communities willingness to make nimble changes to the rate could, in itself, have a stabilizing effect on supply and demand.
• We need to determine the trigger that brings the community to consensus on the need for a rate alteration
• We need to optimize the collateral portfolio to minimize risk while optimizing for business efficacy of the MakerDAO system and remaining competitive.

We have some very talented individuals in the organization answering these questions but MakerDAO is a lot more than the teams at the foundation itself; we want to use this opportunity to start discussing Governance and Risk issues directly with our stakeholders.

We'll take the feedback we receive here and use that to craft the next Stability Fee proposal and work towards arriving at transparent financial models we can all be confident about.

If you’d like a refresher course on some of the issues we’ve been addressing in these meetings please have a look at Steven’s Governance and Risk Framework Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3