MIP113: Governance Scope
0: The Governance Scope
The Governance Scope covers rules that regulate the critical balance of power, and adjudicate on appeals processes related to misalignment in the ecosystem.
1: Scope Improvement
1.1: The Governance Advisory Council
The Governance Advisory Council is a group of Ecosystem Actors that have been approved by Maker Governance to carry out advisory work related to improving the content of the Governance Scope Artifact.
1.1.1: Governance Advisory Council membership management
Members of the Advisory Council are directly approved by Maker Governance through a governance poll, and must fulfill specific criteria.
1.1.1.1: The Governance Facilitators must ensure that potential Advisory Council Members can apply to be approved by Maker Governance, using an open process with clear instructions.
1.1.1.2: Advisory Council Members must be Ecosystem Actors that are not involved in any business activity that could result in a conflict of interest, either directly or indirectly. They must also have relevant skills for providing professional expert input on the content that the Governance Scope is covering.
1.1.1.3: The Governance Facilitators must periodically, when it is relevant, review the Advisory Council Applications, and if they find applications that are suitable, bring them to a vote through an MKR governance poll. Approved Advisory Council Members are added to 10.2.3.1:.
1.1.1.4: The Governance Facilitators may, if they deem it necessary, trigger a vote to remove an Advisory Council Member. If an Advisory Council Member has not done any paid work for the Scope for at least 1 year, then the Governance Facilitators can choose to remove them at will, if they deem it necessary.
1.1.1.5: The current approved Governance Advisory Council Members are recorded in 1.1.1.5.1A.
1.1.1.5.1A:
¤¤¤
Current list of Advisory Council Members:
N/A
¤¤¤
1.1.2: Governance Advisory Council projects and funding
The Advisory Council is paid on a project basis to do specific work that improves all or specific parts of the Scope Framework.
1.1.2.1: Each Quarter, if they deem it necessary, the Governance Facilitators must solicit proposals and find one or more suitable Advisory Council Member to perform a project that will result in output that can be used to improve the Scope Artifact. This work output will be presented to the AVC Subcommittee Meetings as input for their Aligned Scope Proposals. As many AVCs as possible should be supported this way, prioritized by the Governance Facilitators.
1.1.2.2: In case an ambiguous, uncertain or challenging situation arises related to the Scope Framework, the Governance Facilitators may publicly notify the Advisory Council Members to submit proposals for projects that aim to reactively specify the language of the Scope Framework to take into account the specific situation. The Governance Facilitators can then directly propose the change to the Scope Framework in a weekly governance poll.
1.1.2.3: 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.
1.1.3: The Governance Facilitators may produce advisory input on the content of the Scope Artifacts themselves, as long as it is focused on improving process and governance content. They are prohibited from providing unilateral input on expert subject matter content.
1.1.4: The Governance Facilitators have a budget available to pay for Advisory Council Projects per quarter. All spending must be limited to only what is deemed necessary and with a high probability of producing clearly measurable value, and this must transparently be accounted for in a forum post at least a week before any transaction occurs. The budget is contained in 1.1.4.1B.
1.1.4.1B:
¤¤¤
Advisory Council project budget:
N/A
¤¤¤
1.2: Governance Scope DAO Toolkit integration
The Governance Scope DAO Toolkit module must be built to give a full and accessible overview of all data and processes relevant to the Governance Scope.
2: Atlas Immutable Alignment Artifact
The Atlas Immutable Alignment Artifact is the foundation of the Maker Governance process, and aims to guarantee a long term decentralized governance equilibrium. Atlas Interpretation is used to disambiguate elements in the Atlas with expanded definitions, in connection with specific decisions or disputes relying on language from the Atlas. To make the Atlas as solid and immutable as possible, all Atlas Interpretation is recorded to set a precedent about the spirit of the Atlas and how future interpretations should be made.
2.1: Principles of Atlas Interpretation
Atlas Interpretation should only be employed when the Scope Artifacts themselves do not offer enough clarity. The resolution of Scope Artifact ambiguity or disputes must be fully congruent with the spirit of the Atlas and prior precedent, while also clearly setting new precedent and help to prevent future ambiguous situations from occurring. Depending on the level of ambiguity, an MKR vote may be needed to establish the precedent.
2.2: Atlas Interpretation Process
This section contains the processes for proposing and settling Atlas Interpretations.
2.2.1: Atlas interpretation precedent approved through MKR vote is contained as Strengthening subelements of this clause. A majority of Governance Facilitators can trigger a vote to add a new subelement if it is necessary to resolve Atlas ambiguity.
2.2.2: Atlas Interpretation precedent made directly by the Governance Facilitators is contained in 2.2.2.1A.
2.2.2.1A:
¤¤¤ List of direct Atlas Interpretations:
N/A ¤¤¤
3: Scope Bounded Mutable Alignment Artifact (Scope Artifact)
3.1: Scope Artifact appeals
Scope Artifact appeals are a process that allows any Maker Governance participant to trigger a review of a Scope Artifact. This can be in connection with the Scope Artifact failing to follow the Atlas Boundaries, or if it contains biased or otherwise conflicted elements. It can either be a general misalignment of the language of the Scope Artifact, or a specific situation where the Scope Artifact is being misinterpreted or otherwise violated.
3.1.1: Scope Artifact appeals process
Scope Artifact appeal proposals are submitted by AVC Members, and can be accepted or rejected by a majority of the Governance Facilitators. If a Scope Artifact appeal is accepted, the Governance Facilitators must review it. Governance Facilitators can also directly choose to review a Scope Artifact for adherence with Scope boundaries and Atlas alignment.
3.1.1.1: The Governance Facilitators can by consensus directly edit a Scope Artifact to align its content with the Scope boundaries and other Atlas requirements such as neutrality.
3.1.1.2: A majority of the Responsible Facilitators can trigger an MKR governance poll to implement an edit to the appealed Scope Artifact that will align it with the Scope boundaries and other Atlas requirements such as neutrality.
4: Alignment Conservers
The Governance Facilitators must ensure the rules of Alignment Conservers specified in ATL2.4 are followed.
4.1: Alignment Conserver management
Governance Facilitators must derecognize Alignment Conservers if they break the rules specified in the Atlas or the Scope Artifacts, or act misaligned. Derecognition happens by adding the identity and known aliases or associated entities to 4.1.1A. Any Governance Facilitator can do this directly.
4.1.1A:
¤¤¤ List of derecognized Alignment Conservers: N/A ¤¤¤
5: Aligned Voter Committees (AVCs)
AVCs are standardized Voter Committees made up of Alignment Conservers that hold MKR and participate in the Maker Governance process as actors that are deeply aligned with MKR holders. They are subject to specific requirements, and receive various benefits, resources and support from the Support Scope. They have significant formal powers, but no direct physical power, making them well suited to be in control and making key decisions during normal conditions.
AVCs focus on making sure that the day to day Letter of the Rules of the scopes are aligned with the spirit of rules and Universal Alignment. The AVCs impact on Maker Governance is to make marginal improvements to the Alignment Artifacts that strengthen them. As AVCs make detailed Universal Alignment interpretations, they must all follow a particular Strategic Perspective that informs their subjective definition of Universal Alignment.
The Stability Facilitators must ensure that the processes related to Aligned Voter Committees specified in ATL2.5 are followed.
5.1: Aligned Voter Committee Decisions
AVC splits are disabled until the launch of NewChain.
5.2: Aligned Voter Committee Member Recognition
5.2.1: To become recognized as an Unaffiliated AVC Member, an Ecosystem Actor must post a recognition submission message publicly on the Maker Governance Forum.
5.2.1.1 A recognition submission message must be cryptographically signed by an Ethereum address containing at least 1 MKR, or that has delegated at least 1 MKR.
5.2.1.2 The cryptographically signed AVC Member Recognition Message must contain the information specified in 5.2.1.2.1 and 5. 4.1.2.2. The information specified in 5.2.1.2.3 and 5.2.1.2.4 is optional.
5.2.1.2.1: The following text must be included: “AVC Member Recognition”.
5.2.1.2.2: A timestamp recording the time and date that the message was signed.
5.2.1.2.3: The desired name of the AVC Member.
5.2.1.2.4: The AVC that the AVC Member wishes to join, if applicable.
5.2.1.3 A recognition submission message must use the format described in 5.2.1.4.
5.2.1.4
5.2.2: The Governance Facilitators must maintain the list of Unaffiliated AVC Members contained in 5.2.2.1A.
5.2.2.1A:
¤¤¤
List of Unaffiliated AVC Members:
Expand Table
¤¤¤
5.2.3: An Unaffiliated AVC Member may join an AVC through the process described in 4.5 or start a new AVC through the process described in 4.4.
5.2.4: AVC Management
The Governance Facilitators must monitor and record the status of each AVC.
5.2.4.1: The list of all AVCs is contained in 5.2.4.1A, broken down by current status. The Arbitration Facilitators must keep the list current based on AVC creation, adherence with requirements, and AVC Decisions.
5.2.4.2: An AVC is marked as active status if it has fulfilled every requirement under 4.3 in the previous quarter.
5.2.4.3: An AVC is marked as inactive status if it has failed to fulfill the requirements under 4.3 for the most recent quarter, but has fulfilled the requirements for one or more prior quarters.
5.2.4.4: An AVC is marked as pending status if it has been in existence for less than one full quarter.
5.2.4.5: An AVC that has failed to fulfill the requirements under 5.2.4 for two consecutive quarters is no longer considered an AVC and is removed from the list in 5.2.4.7.1A. —
5.2.4.6: The list of all AVCs is contained in 5.2.4.7.1A, broken down by current status. The Arbitration Facilitators must keep the list current based on AVC creation, adherence with requirements, and AVC Decisions.
5.2.4.1.7A:
¤¤¤
List of active CVCs and their members:
Expand Table
Expand Table
Expand Table
Expand Table
Expand Table
List of pending CVCs and their members:
N/A
List of inactive CVCs and their members:
N/A
¤¤¤
5.3: Aligned Voter Committee Activation
If 2 or fewer AVCs are active, then newly created AVCs are instantly Active from the moment of creation. If 3 or more AVCs are active, then new AVCs have to comply with the activation requirements for a full quarterly governance cycle before becoming Active.
6: Aligned Delegates (ADs)
The Governance Facilitators must ensure that all the rules of ADs are followed as specified in ATL2.6
6.1: Aligned Delegate Recognition
The Governance Facilitators must maintain a list of Recognized Aligned Delegates, and maintain the process for applying for Recognition as an Aligned Delegate
6.1.1: The current state of ADs is maintained by the Governance Facilitators.
6.1.2 The list of all current recognized ADs is maintained in 6.1.2A.
6.1.2A:
¤¤¤
List of current CDs:
¤¤¤
6.2: Recognition of Aligned Delegates
6.2.1: Aligned Delegates must be recognized by the Governance Facilitators if they fulfill the following requirements:
6.2.1.1 An Ecosystem Actor must publicly post a AD Recognition Submission Message on the Maker Governance Forum.
6.2.1.2 An Ecosystem Actor must deploy exactly 2 Protocol Delegation System smart contracts and specify which AVC Governance Strategy each of them follows as part of the submission message.
6.2.1.3 The submission message must be cryptographically signed by the deploying Ethereum address.
6.2.1.3.1: Since an Ethereum address may only control a single Protocol Delegation System smart contract, Aligned Delegates should cryptographically demonstrate that they control the Ethereum address that controls each of their deployed Protocol Delegation System smart contracts.
6.2.1.4 The cryptographically signed Aligned Delegate Recognition Submission Messages must contain the information specified in 6.2.1.4.1 and 6.2.1.4.2.
6.2.1.4.1: The following text must be included: “Aligned Delegate Recognition”.
6.2.1.4.2: A timestamp recording the time and date that the message was signed.
6.2.1.5 The submission message must follow this template:
6.3: Prime Delegate and Reserve Delegate slots
The number of PD and RD slots is modifiable over time, and must be increased or decreased as the income of PDs increases or decreases, in accordance with the Atlas. The current number of PD and RD slots is specified in 6.3.1A. This single number applies separately to the number of PDs, and RDs, and also determines (by taking its double) the amount of AVC Member reward slots. The Governance Facilitators can unanimously, directly increase or decrease the number with 1 every 3 months. The Governance Facilitators can trigger a weekly governance poll to change the number to a new arbitrary number.
6.3.1A:
¤¤¤ The current number of Prime Delegate and Reserve Delegate slots (applies separately to both):
7
¤¤¤
7: FacilitatorDAOs and Facilitators
The Governance Facilitators must ensure that all the rules of FacilitatorDAOs and Facilitators are followed as specified in ATL2.7
7.1: Active Facilitators
Before the Launch of SubDAOs, Maker Governance directly chooses the Facilitators that are responsible for each of the Scopes.
7.1.1: Core Units and Facilitator Management
During the pregame, the Governance Scope manages and provides the budget for Core Units and Facilitators, while designating their responsible Scopes.
7.1.1.1: The Ecosystem Actor name, Ethereum address and budgets are contained in 7.1.1.1.1A. The Active Element is changed through the ordinary AVC process. Facilitator budgets are paid out even if the recipients are not active Facilitators, as long as they are using the budget to perform useful work for the Maker Ecosystem.
7.1.1.1.1A:
¤¤¤
List of Facilitator budgets:
Expand Table
¤¤¤
7.1.2: The Scopes and their responsible Facilitators, or Responsible Facilitator Core Units, are contained in 7.1.2.1A. The Active Element is changed through the ordinary AVC process.
7.1.2.1A:
¤¤¤
List of Responsible Facilitators:
¤¤¤
7.1.3: If all Facilitators of a Scope are unresponsive and not taking care of their duties, a majority of the remaining Facilitators can choose amongst themselves an interim Facilitator, that will then temporarily become the Responsible Facilitator for the Scope
7.1.4: Reserve Facilitators can help protect the continuity of Maker Governance in case other Facilitators become unavailable. If the main Facilitators of a scope become unresponsive or otherwise unavailable, the Reserve Facilitators can initiate a take over as interim Facilitators by posting their observations of inactivity or unavailability to the Maker Core forum. If the take over is not disputed by the existing Facilitators within 48 hours, the Reserve Facilitators are changed to Facilitators in 6.1.2.1A, and must take care of the duties of the role until a new Facilitator is selected using the ordinary AVC process.
7.1.4.1 The Governance Facilitators can propose expedited onboarding of Reserve Facilitators in order to ensure enough Facilitators are available to guarantee governance continuity. This is done by posting the name(s), ethereum address(es) and scope(s) of responsibility of the proposed Reserve Facilitators to the Maker Core forum. This triggers a Governance Poll following the Weekly Governance Cycle. If the Governance Poll is approved, the Reserve Facilitators are added to 7.1.2.1A.
8: Professional Ecosystem Actors
The Governance Facilitators must put in place processes to monitor the Ecosystem Actors for risks of conflict of interest between Advisory Council Members and Active Ecosystem Actors, and ensure that the Scope Artifacts and the checks they place on Active Ecosystem Actors are in Universal Alignment with the Atlas.
9: Interaction of Aligned Voter Committees (AVCs), Aligned Delegates (ADs), FacilitatorDAOs and Advisory Council
The Governance Facilitators must ensure to follow and enforce the principles described in ATL2.9 to prevent misalignment of the core governance decision process.
10: Core Governance Security
The Governance Facilitators must ensure that adequate funding and research goes towards developing a long term solid and scalable Core Governance Security Framework, that must be specified in this Article and be in accordance with ATL2.11.
11: SubDAO Governance Security
The Governance Facilitators must ensure that adequate funding and research goes towards developing a long term solid and scalable SubDAO Governance Security Framework, that must be specified in this Article and be in accordance with ATL2.11.
12: Scope Bootstrapping
12.1: Bootstrapping Governance Votes
Governance Facilitators are empowered to use broad judgment when exercising their ability to make direct Atlas interpretations and edits to the Atlas and the Scope Artifacts, when this relates to unintended consequences or mistakes in the affected documents.
12.1.1: In case of unintended consequences or mistakes in the Atlas and Scope Artifacts causing Maker Governance to function incorrectly, the Governance Facilitators can at any time run a Governance Poll to enable MKR holders to make a decision that will alleviate and resolve unintended consequences or mistakes.
12.1.2: The Governance Facilitators can at any time propose to edit any content of a Scope Artifact through a Governance Poll.
12.2: Aligned Delegate Privacy Transition
As a one-time event, in the moment this version of the Scope Artifact is accepted by Maker Governance, all existing PDs and RDs receive one months payout at their prior rate of compensation, based on their ranking at the moment the Scope Artifact is accepted.
12.3: Aligned Delegate bootstrapping seasons
The first Aligned Delegate season lasts from the moment this Scope Artifact is accepted, until the first deployment of the Sagittarius Engine. After the first deployment of the Sagittarius Engine, the next Aligned Delegate season then lasts until Q2 of the following year.
12.4: AVC Advisory Council Focus
During bootstrapping, until the Scope Improvement Articles of each Scope Artifact are well developed, AVCs must focus on making Aligned Scope Proposals that improve the Scope Improvement Articles. ADs must not follow instructions by AVCs, through Aligned Governance Strategies or Aligned Scope Proposals, that cover subjects other than improvements to the Scope Improvement Articles and/or Scope Advisory Councils. Instead, for matters not related to Scope Improvement Articles and/or Scope Advisory Councils, ADs must vote according to their own understanding of Universal Alignment and the spirit of the Atlas in a way that best pushes forward the Maker Ecosystem towards the Endgame State and strengthens the Alignment Artifacts. ADs must make use of the ability of MIP102 edits to distinguish between Article 1 edits and General edits of Scope Artifacts, to make sure they follow their AVCs GSL instructions for Article 1 edits, and treat General edits separately.
Last updated