Funding SourceCred from Maker Protocol

[s_ben]

This is super helpful @DeltaFreq!

I think MKR stakeholders’ mental bandwidth may actually be the most scarce resource here. Optimizing for that makes sense. I also think that sourcing DAI from the flap auctions as you suggest might also be a good way to align MKR holder and contributor incentives. If contributors don’t get paid if MKR holders don’t, this will affect contributor decisions, especially if the reserve is running low. Security around income could be negotiated perhaps around the size of the rainy day fund, % diverted into the fund, or other clean mechanisms that are easy for all parties to understand. Which could be voted on by MKR holders when they vote on the other high-level parameters, such as the amount of DAI distributed every month, algorithms weights, etc.

@DeltaFreq

Here you can see that the flapper has been quite busy recently. Scroll down and click “load all history” to see more. I have not collected and analyzed the historical data for flap auctions. This analysis would be pretty essential to determining what the appropriate amount to send to rainy day fund would be.

Great to know this analysis is possible.

@DeltaFreq

Overall though, you can see that my proposal shifts complexity away from MKR holders onto SC contributors, which is kind of annoying but again may make it easier to pass.

I would argue the value prop of SourceCred is, in a way, abstracting a way tons of complexity in regards to valuing contributions. Compared to the main SourceCred algo and the Maker system generally, the complexity of managing variable payouts from the protocol seems small by comparison.

@DeltaFreq

Regarding the complexity of equations in Grainmaker P1, I think it’s deceptively simple actually, my write up is just bad lol.

Yeah, something like what you propos in Grainmaker P1 post could be totally workable and fairly elegant.

@DeltaFreq

Also, this document defines suck() as “mint unbacked stablecoin (ie dai)”, unless I am missing something, I think this is not what we want to do. We are talking about getting paid from protocol profit / dai surplus, not arbitrarily minting new dai in a way that is discontinuous with protocol profitability.

My sense from reading threads about this on the Maker forum is that some think “unbacked” DAI is fine, others have issue with it. Best to remove any cause for concern we can though.