Q3-Sovereign Finance Propuestas de Scope Alineadas

This document represents our analysis and study of the current MakerDAO Scopes Artifacts. During Quarter 3, we actively hosted subcommittee meetings, where we shared our perspectives and received valuable feedback from MKR holders, Ecosystem Actors, and Aligned Delegates.

An explanation of the underlying rationale accompanies each proposed improvement.

Terminology

• Current Scope Component: These are components of the Scope that are taken exactly as they are currently written.
• Modify: Proposed modification to the Scope component, while maintaining the component number.
• Add: Add a new component with a new component number.
• Rationale: The reasoning behind our proposal.

MIP113: Governance Scope Bounded Mutable Alignment Artifact

1.1: The Governance Advisory Council

Component 1.1.3.4

• Current Scope Component:
  • 1.1.3.4: The Advisory Council may produce work output that is not directly compatible with the formatting of the Scope Artifact. In this case, the Governance Facilitators must either transcribe it themselves or hire an Ecosystem Actor to perform the transcription. This role does not require pre-approval by Maker Governance.
• Modify & Add:
  • 1.1.3.4: The Advisory Council may in some cases produce work output that is not directly compatible with the formatting of the Scope Artifact. In this case, the Governance Facilitators should transcribe them themselves or help the Advisory Council choose the most appropriate format for their deliverables.
  • 1.1.3.4.1: As per ATL 2.8.1 The Advisory Council is a technical expert in the field in which it is hired to perform a job. Despite being desired, it won't necessarily understand how Scopes and ATLAS format is. That’s why they can request Governance Facilitators’ support on the format for their work output.
  • 1.1.3.4.2: When the Advisory Council considers they will need Governance Facilitators assist in formatting their output, they must disclose it in their Advisory Council submission post in Maker forum.
• Rationale:
  • The Advisory Council is an expert (usually technical), may not know how to write a scope and may need support from the facilitator to do so. We believe it is important to take care of the economics of MakerDAO, we do not consider that an Ecosystem Actor should be hired to perform scope transcription.

2.2: Atlas Interpretation Process

• Add Component 2.2.3:
  • 2.2.3: Atlas interpretation requirements.
  • 2.2.3.1: Any participant in Maker Governance can make a post on the Maker Forum, requesting an Atlas Interpretation from the Governance Facilitators
  • 2.2.3.2: When a request for an Atlas interpretation is posted on the Maker Forum, the Governance Facilitators have a maximum 30-day review period. During this period, the MakerDAO community may provide comments. The applicant must respond to all questions and inquiries.
  • 2.2.3.3: The Governance Facilitators may extend this deadline, if necessary, by 15 days, provided that they have published the justification in the Maker Forum.
  • 2.2.3.4: In order for the Governance Facilitators to be compelled to comply with the interpretation request, the request made must be endorsed or supported by at least one AVC member. In all cases the Facilitator can voluntarily proceed with the interpretation.
  • 2.2.3.5: At the end of the review period, the Governance Facilitators shall post on the Maker Forum the response to the Atlas interpretation request, along with a description of the reasons for the decision. They shall also indicate which Governance Facilitators voted in favor and which voted against the majority decision.
  • 2.2.3.6: Backtracking Mechanism.
  • 2.2.3.6.1: A Backtracking Mechanism is established, allowing any Maker Governance participant to request a re-evaluation of an adopted Atlas Interpretation on the Maker Forum, outlining the identified adverse effects and proposed amendments.
  • 2.2.3.6.2: The Governance Facilitators will review the request, engage the community, and post the final decision on maintaining, amending, or revoking the interpretation, along with the rationale and any required action plan, in a maximum of 30-days period of the request.
• Rationale:
  • 2.2.3.2 & 2.2.3.3: We consider it necessary to establish a specific timeframe for reviewing Atlas interpretation proposals to avoid possible cases of "archiving" or "delaying" a proposal. These situations can occur if a Facilitator has malicious intentions or does not fulfill their duties.
  • 2.2.3.4: We want to avoid spam interpretation requests.
  • 2.2.3.5: Justification of the decisions and control by Maker Ecosystem and knowing how each Facilitator votes on each decision provides transparency and the ability to track consistency over time.
  • 2.2.3.6: We consider it necessary to establish a Backtracking Mechanism.

3.1: Scope Artifact Appeals