MakerDAO sudden emergency governance proposal: soaring borrowing limits and collateral ratios—defense or power struggle?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
MakerDAO sudden emergency governance proposal: soaring borrowing limits and collateral ratios—defense or power struggle?
The proposal to "enhance protocol security and responsiveness by adjusting LSE-MKR-A risk parameters and shortening GSM Pause Delay" not only significantly increased the borrowing cap for MKR tokens but also substantially reduced collateral requirements.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthors: Three Sigma & PaperImperium
Translated by: Shenzhen, PANews
MakerDAO recently saw an unexpected "emergency governance proposal" rapidly enter the voting process without any prior warning—and it has already passed (though still in a time-lock phase). This proposal not only significantly raised the borrowing cap for MKR tokens but also drastically reduced collateral requirements, sparking widespread community concerns over governance transparency and fairness.
Proposal Highlights: Comprehensive Adjustments from Debt Ceilings to Collateral Ratios
According to the LSE-MKR-A risk parameter changes published on the forum, the core elements of this proposal include:
• Maximum debt ceiling (line)
Increased from 25 million USDS to 45 million USDS
• Target available debt (gap)
Raised in one go from 5 million USDS to 45 million USDS
• Debt ceiling increase cooldown (ttl)
Reduced from 36 hours to 20 hours
• Stability Fee
Increased from 12% to 20%
• Liquidation Ratio
Sharply reduced from 200% to 125%
• Liquidation Penalty
Reduced from 5% to 0%
In addition, the proposal reduces the GSM Pause Delay from the original 30 hours to 18 hours, meaning future governance-level response times for contract execution will be further shortened.
These parameter adjustments effectively allow MKR tokens used as collateral to access much higher borrowing limits (more than double the previous limit) and enable higher leverage (collateral ratio dropping from 200% to 125%). At the same time, the liquidation penalty has been reduced to 0%, significantly lowering the cost of being liquidated.
Official Justification: Preventing Governance Attacks—Do They Exist?
Defensive Rationale vs. Vague Attack Vectors
Both the proposal initiators and some official channels have justified the urgency of this proposal as being "necessary to prevent potential governance attacks." However, multiple community members, including PaperImperium, point out that no known or ongoing specific attack has been identified. The community remains deeply skeptical about whether this proposal genuinely defends against such alleged "governance attacks," and whether there may be deeper underlying motives.
Critics Being Silenced
The most controversial aspect is that during the voting period, several users and organizations expressing opposition or skepticism (such as GFX Labs) had their accounts banned or muted across official channels like Discord and the forum. PaperImperium reported that their personal Discord account and GFX Labs' forum account were both muted during this time, making it difficult for critical voices to continue airing concerns through official platforms.
Diverse Perspectives: Who Benefits, Who Questions?
Short-Term Beneficiaries: High Leverage and Liquidity
• Large Holders or Institutions
With this proposal, users holding large amounts of MKR can now more easily borrow larger quantities of USDS from the Maker protocol, while the reduced collateral ratio allows them to achieve higher leverage with less capital.
• High-Risk Speculators
For traders willing to take on greater risks, the lower liquidation penalties and increased leverage capacity clearly open up more strategic flexibility.
Long-Term Risks: Potential Impacts on Governance and Financial Security
• Governance Centralization and Transparency
Promoting a proposal quickly and bypassing normal procedures without clear evidence of an attack inevitably raises questions about whether a small group of stakeholders is wielding disproportionate power.
• Rising Systemic Risk
Significantly lowering the liquidation ratio and raising the debt ceiling means the system is more prone to cascading failures under market volatility when high leverage is involved.
• Erosion of Community Trust
Silencing critics and lacking sufficient justification for emergency measures could damage MakerDAO's reputation for decentralized governance.
Multifaceted Motivations Behind the Emergency Proposal
PaperImperium noted that some MKR holders have recently expressed dissatisfaction with MakerDAO’s development direction, sources of profit, and governance practices, calling for reform. Whether this proposal connects to these internal demands remains a key issue for discussion.
• Internal Reform Demands
Against a backdrop of stagnating growth and declining profits, some MKR holders seek to drive protocol changes and improve capital efficiency.
• Factions in Governance Conflict
Different interest groups have competing agendas in governance. Using an emergency proposal to swiftly push through changes may be a tactic to gain control over the protocol's future direction.
• External Defense or Internal Manipulation
The claim of a "governance attack" is not uncommon in DeFi circles, but actual cases usually require clear on-chain evidence. The lack of concrete proof here has heightened concerns about possible "internal manipulation."
Future Outlook: Where Is MakerDAO Heading?
The impact of MakerDAO's recent emergency governance proposal extends far beyond mere parameter adjustments—it fundamentally challenges the model of decentralized governance. Currently, the community is particularly focused on the following questions:
1. Improving Governance Processes
How can future major proposals follow a more transparent and democratic process, rather than bypassing community consensus under the guise of "urgency"?
2. Information Disclosure and Oversight
Will there be disclosure of specific details regarding the alleged "potential attack," and reasonable explanations provided for the silencing of users, to maintain trust in governance?
3. Balancing Decentralization and Efficiency
Decentralized governance is often inefficient, yet overly centralized decision-making risks abuse of power. Finding the optimal balance between the two will be a core challenge for MakerDAO.
Conclusion: Guard Against Governance Black Boxes, Return to Community Consensus
The "emergency governance proposal" acts like a truth-revealing mirror, exposing the most critical aspect in the DeFi ecosystem: when external or internal pressures arise, can governance mechanisms truly withstand the test? As a pioneer in the DeFi space, the reflections prompted by this incident carry significant implications for the entire industry.
Perhaps, as community critics suggest, without clear and transparent governance procedures and publicly verifiable evidence of an attack, any claim of "emergency" could become a tool for concentrating power among a few. Only by ensuring open dialogue within the community and establishing robust governance mechanisms can MakerDAO truly embark on a healthy and sustainable path forward.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@threesigmaxyz
