3 ms·

At some point when the incentives keep driving these "institutions" to make choices like this maybe you need to start questioning how the existing structures dr

• yieldcrv 4y ago
  This rhetorical comment actually has a specific answer. MakerDAO tokens were sold to VCs like Andreesen Horowitz and Polychain and Dragonfly, the latter of which are less patient crypto native funds, who wanted the infrastructure for trading immediately. Their outsized ownership allowed for ethos breaking changes, to great financial success, but before organically created infrastructure was in place. There were no liquidity pools, liquidity pool optimizers, borrowing and lending protocols, value extraction. Again taking a look at Magic Internet Money, one part of the structure is that their SPELL token (the equivalent of the MAKER token) was launched more organically and at least has been able to keep an ethos within the owners. Nothing here prevents more consolidated ownership, or any novelties in governance (and I argue that governance can be vassstly improved, there are no bylaws or even continuity between governance anywhere). Only a case study into the contrast between MakerDAO and the answer to your rhetorical comment.