After several rounds of voting and heated debate, the final vote failed to recoup the losses Maker (MKR) users had “unfairly” settled during the March crash.
Approximately 52,500 MKR voted against any compensation, representing 65% of the total vote. This represents about 8% of the total MKR, which some commentators took as a sign of declining enrollment.
However, community member Maker Monetsupply, who was part of the working group that drafted the compensation proposal, told Cointelegraph it was “something important to vote.” According to him, surveys usually contain less than 40,000 tokens.
The results of the vote were somewhat unexpected when a similar poll just three weeks after the accident gave the opposite result – 65,000 MKR expressed 65% of the votes for compensation.
While another vote with a smaller turnout was negative, the working group was still motivated to continue voting because of the first vote.
Monetsupply cited three main reasons for the failed vote, she said. The first is a fundamental issue – the owners of safes must be paid compensation. They said, “There are good arguments for or against.”
The discussion can be summed up in two thoughts: one argues that although it was not a technical hack, the system was still imperfect and the risk was not correctly identified, so the victims should be compensated. Another point of view is that Maker does not make any guarantees of the return of collateral, because the auction system depends on market incentives – if the market is ineffective at some point, the producer environment should not be held responsible.
While Monetsupply didn’t make any sense, she thinks someone might have misunderstood the filter system:
“I think safes have unrealistic expectations about how much they will return for the Black Swan event. Maker has an Oracle Watch deadline that says lockers allow them to salvage their storage by filing a bid, but the downside is that if the price drops during that hour only that the treasury is finally liquidated, the price is lower, and therefore, the Treasury will receive less collateral. ”
However, even for those who were in favor of paying the coffers, Monetsupply believes there are two more arguments against this. One is a shift in responsibility, as many in the community feel that liquidation risk is not properly explained in the Oasis interface that is maintained by the Maker Foundation.
“So perhaps some MKR holders felt they weren’t obligated to pay, although they sympathized with the cashier,” added Monetsupply.
The second aggravating factor is the class action claims of the victims of the amicable agreement against the manufacturer:
“If MakerDAO accepts compensation, what is stopping the cashier from accepting money while you are still in the Maker Foundation’s claim?”