MakerDAO issues an emergency governance proposal: borrowing limits and collateral ratios rise together, is it defense OR a power struggle?

Original Title: “Out-of-Schedule Executive Proposal for Community Security”

Author: Three Sigma & PaperImperium

Compiled by: Shenzhen, PANews

Recently, MakerDAO has introduced a sudden "emergency governance proposal," which quickly entered the voting process without any warning and has been passed (but is still in the time-lock phase). This proposal not only significantly increases the borrowing limit for MKR tokens but also substantially lowers the collateral requirements, raising widespread concerns within the community about governance transparency and fairness.

Proposal Highlights: Comprehensive Adjustments from Debt Limits to Collateral Ratios

According to the LSE-MKR-A Risk Parameter Changes published on the forum, the core content of this proposal includes:

• Maximum Debt Limit (line)

Increased from 25 million USDS to 45 million USDS

• Target Available Debt (gap)

Increased from 5 million USDS to 45 million USDS in one go

• Debt Limit Increase Cooldown Time (ttl)

Reduced from 36 hours to 20 hours

• Stability Fee

Increased from 12% to 20%

• Liquidation Ratio

Significantly reduced from 200% to 125%

• Liquidation Penalty

Reduced from 5% to 0%

Additionally, the proposal will reduce the GSM Pause Delay from the original 30 hours to 18 hours, meaning that in the future, the response time for contract execution at the governance level will be further shortened.

These parameter adjustments essentially allow MKR tokens to obtain a higher borrowing limit (over twice the previous amount) when used as collateral and permit higher leverage (collateral ratio reduced from 200% to 125%). At the same time, the liquidation penalty has also been lowered to 0%, significantly reducing the cost of liquidation.

Official Statement: Is There Really a Need to Prevent Governance Attacks?

Defensive Reasons vs. Ambiguous Attack Vectors

Both the proposal initiators and some official channels attribute the urgency of this proposal to "prevent potential governance attacks." However, several community members, including PaperImperium, have pointed out that no known, ongoing specific attacks have been identified. There are still many doubts within the community regarding whether this proposal can truly defend against so-called "governance attacks" and whether there are deeper motivations behind it.

Critics Facing Bans

The most controversial aspect is that during the voting period, multiple users and institutions (such as GFX Labs) who held opposing or questioning positions had their accounts muted or banned on official channels like Discord and the forum. PaperImperium stated that their personal Discord account and GFX Labs' forum account also faced muting during this period, making it difficult for dissenting voices to continue to resonate on official channels.

Multiple Perspectives: Who Benefits, Who Questions?

Short-term Beneficiaries: High Leverage and High Liquidity

• Large Holders or Institutions

With this proposal, users holding large amounts of MKR can more easily borrow more 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 higher risks, the lower liquidation penalty and increased leverage space undoubtedly provide more operational flexibility.

Long-term Risks: Potential Impacts on Governance and Financial Security

• Governance Concentration and Transparency

In the absence of clear evidence of attacks, bypassing conventional processes and quickly passing proposals inevitably raises questions about whether a minority of interest groups are exercising excessive power.

• Increased Systemic Risk

Significantly lowering the liquidation ratio and raising the debt limit means that the system is more likely to experience chain reactions under high leverage during market fluctuations.

• Erosion of Community Trust

Critics being muted and the lack of sufficient justification for emergency measures could potentially damage MakerDAO's reputation for decentralized governance.

Multiple Motivations Behind the Emergency Proposal

PaperImperium pointed out that some MKR holders have recently expressed dissatisfaction with MakerDAO's development direction, profit sources, and community governance methods, calling for reforms. Whether this proposal is related to these internal demands remains a key point for discussion.

• Internal Reform Demands

Against the backdrop of "stagnant growth and declining profits," some MKR holders wish to promote protocol changes to improve capital efficiency.

• Factional Struggles in Governance

Different interest groups have varying demands at the governance level, and using emergency proposals to quickly push through certain changes may be a means of competing for the direction of the protocol.

• External Defense or Internal Manipulation

The notion of "governance attacks" is not uncommon in the DeFi space, but actual implementation often requires clear on-chain evidence; the lack of conclusive evidence this time has also raised alerts about the possibility of "internal manipulation."

Future Outlook: Where Does MakerDAO Go from Here?

The impact of this emergency governance proposal from MakerDAO is not limited to the parameter adjustments themselves; its deeper significance lies in questioning the decentralized governance model. Currently, the community is particularly concerned about the following issues:

1. Improvement of Governance Processes

How to ensure that subsequent major proposals follow a more transparent and democratic process, rather than bypassing community consensus in the name of "emergency"?

2. Information Disclosure and Oversight

Can reasonable explanations be provided regarding the specific details of the "potential attacks" and the treatment of muted users to maintain community trust in governance?

3. Balancing Decentralization and Efficiency

Decentralized governance often has lower efficiency, but overly centralized decision-making can lead to power abuse. Finding the best balance between the two will be a core challenge for MakerDAO.

Conclusion: Beware of Governance Black Boxes, Return to Community Consensus

The "emergency governance proposal" serves as a mirror, revealing the aspects of the DeFi ecosystem that need attention: when external or internal pressures arise, can the governance mechanism truly withstand the test? As a pioneer in the DeFi space, the reflections brought about by this incident have significant implications for the entire industry.

Perhaps, as community critics have said, without a clear and transparent governance process and publicly verifiable evidence of attacks, any "emergency" could become a tool for the power of a few. Only by ensuring open channels for community dialogue and establishing a sound governance mechanism can MakerDAO truly embark on a path of healthy and sustainable development.