Patrick_J 🦇🔊

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@ImperiumPaper No PVP?

https://t.co/n8DwDjwSQh

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@ImperiumPaper @E_Universalis That's a strange way to spell Portugal

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@raphbaph @MonetSupply It went to 16 hours when USDC depegged. Line 489 here: https://t.co/hsTSlvyM3r

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@raphbaph I like the principle. It's effectively governance driving prioritisation through a dynamic grants program which is a nice idea.

The main caveat is that you need a good number of entities who can deliver the outcome. If it's a limited pool then can delay to juice yields.

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@inkymaze @aave @MorphoLabs @MakerDAO @gauntlet_xyz @LidoFinance @compoundfinance @Uniswap @PancakeSwap @GMX_IO IMO Protocol audits would include all audits for a protocol, its smart contracts or modules, like the 30+ Chainsecurity audits.

A number that does not represent all audits performed for a protocol may lead to an inference that there has been inappropriate security consideration

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@raphbaph It depends on your DAO's function/goals 🙂 DAOs aren't one-size-fits-all and different missions will have different measures of success.

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@nero_eth Do you have a link to the source data please? I checked the rETH figures against Etherscan and it looks like you've counted pooled tokens as a single holder e.g. all the rETH deposited to Aave (~6.4%) is counted as 1 holder, as is all the rETH in Maker (~6.5%), in Gravita etc.

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@DisruptionJoe It's certainly been an interesting experiment to observe as an outside party. Unfortunately, I think a number of the issues were pretty predictable and avoidable if more care had been taken with the design.

If v2 happens it will be very interesting to observe the evolution.

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@hexonaut People aren't confused, they just saw an opportunity to low-effort engagement farm because "lol Maker bad" and jumped on it.

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@ImperiumPaper @fraxfinance @arbitrum Ignoring the 60k+ MKR in the Pause Proxy, the numbers were close. However, Pause Proxy tokens don't protect Dai's value in a bad debt scenario, unlike the SB. I think Steakhouse still counts them as assets in financial reports.

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@MonetSupply @ImperiumPaper @fraxfinance @arbitrum No idea, the table at the bottom doesn't include entries for locked liquidity, and can't find it in the FRAX docs

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@ImperiumPaper @fraxfinance @arbitrum Generally, I think this is a nice example of a Maker term being used by another protocol in ways that don't match how Maker actually uses it. See also: Gov Facilitator which has/had specific powers and responsibilities in Maker but is used elsewhere for very different roles.

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@ImperiumPaper @fraxfinance @arbitrum Agree they're using different definitions, which was kinda my whole point. Can't point at Maker and say "Their SB is x while ours is much bigger at Y" when you're using an entirely different definition

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@ImperiumPaper @fraxfinance @arbitrum Well, the treasury tab on makerburn kinda does (https://t.co/zkFEHTQSbf) although it seems to be out of date.

On the smart contract level the SB is specific to the Vow and is essentially "How much Dai is immediately available to cover bad debt?"

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@ImperiumPaper @fraxfinance @arbitrum For another example, Maker doesn't include Dai held as part of the MKR/DAI LPs in the Pause Proxy as Surplus Buffer contents.

The way FRAX seems to be calculating theirs, they would include both tokens that make up the LP position in their SB.

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@ImperiumPaper @fraxfinance @arbitrum I'm not saying the value is unbacked, I'm saying it's not equivalent to the Surplus Buffer if it's not liquid since it is not available to backstop bad debt when you need it.
This is the same argument to not include off-chain revenue in the Maker SB until it's realised on-chain

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@ImperiumPaper @fraxfinance @arbitrum receipt for the above statement, https://t.co/411qxEcp15

[Patrick_J 🦇🔊 @Patrick_J3]

@ImperiumPaper @fraxfinance @arbitrum Yeah I know it's not your claim, it's the applicant who said it. But for example, the number contains 10 million USD of CVX - like there's no way that's remotely equivalent to Maker's SB and it's either misguided or highly disingenuous for them to claim it is.