After upgrading the multi-mortgage Dai, MakerDao will do these in the next 10 years.

This week, MakerDao's stable currency project, Dai, has just completed a multi-mortgage (MCD) upgrade, marking a new journey for the project.

In order to understand the direction of the project, Spartan Capital invited Rune Christensen, founder of the Maker Foundation, to talk with you about the next plan of MakerDao, and its newly launched multi-mortgage Dai will be in the field of de-financing (DeFi). What kind of impact?

Rune Christensen said that MakerDao may create a basket of currencies next, or may launch Dai that anchors other legal currencies. In addition, Dai may use these statutory stable coins as collateral after central banks introduce their own statutory stable currency. .

Rune Christensen

Question 1: Why is multi-mortgage Dai important for Maker?

Rune: Maker is one of the longest-running projects on the Ethereum platform, and we are always working to create the ultimate stable currency.

Three years ago, we launched a single mortgage Dai, which is basically the first version of this stable currency system, which allows us to test it in the real world, allowing the Ethereum ecosystem to be built on a stable currency and allowing The emergence and spread of the DeFi movement.

And the multi-mortgage Dai we are doing now is designed to realize the full potential of the original idea of ​​creating a truly void-free stable coin that can continue in the future. Multi-collateral types are critical, and the main reason is scalability. Only by allowing collateral types outside of Ethereum (and potential encryption technologies), is it possible to create a stable currency that can be extended to serve the entire global economy.

With MCD, Maker is now a complete software package that basically solves all the major problems that need to be solved, so DeFi can be built on this basis without any restrictions. Question 2: In fact, many crypto assets are more volatile than ETH. Do you consider collateral in traditional financial assets?

Rune: Maker exists to try to redesign the financial system. If we really want to have such an impact on society, then of course, we will have to cross the very niche crypto asset boundary.

DeFi still only exists in the bubbles of the cryptocurrency. In this particular community, this is still a very selfish act, but in the future, it may do something, such as providing small business loans to people in developing countries.

We also want to provide small businesses with a better and more equitable type of credit service so that they are not discriminated against by large companies, and this is how the financial system operates today.

This does not necessarily mean that you need to start interacting directly with concepts in the “real world,” such as securities, commodities, token-based businesses, or parts of real estate. More importantly, we need to make sure that Maker does handle risk.

So if you want to do this right and really start interacting with real-world assets, you must consider factors such as regulation, risk of being cheated, and risk of counterparty. This is a huge challenge, and it is quite unprecedented. Many people are highly skeptical about whether it can be achieved. But this is a recipe for MCD, which allows you to spread risk across many different assets and many different types of risks by allowing multiple types of collateral.

In this way, if an asset collapses badly, you will not suffer a huge impact, especially if the asset only accounts for 0.01% of the total collateral portfolio. Question 3: Does the use of licensed assets (such as tokenized securities) detract from decentralization?

The key is the dispersion of risks. You can even say that it is “the decentralization of centralization”.

For example, look at the structure of the Bitcoin market or the Ethereum market. If you look at how the bitcoin market is built today, or if you look at it from a regulatory perspective, it's clear that Bitcoin relies to some extent on centralized infrastructure. Bitcoin prices are based entirely on relatively few centralized exchanges, which are mainly from China and the United States.

And all trading pairs happen on these types of centralized exchanges, some of which are becoming more standardized. Many of them have close ties with regulators in different countries, and the exchange itself has its own KYC policy.

So in many ways, the value of Bitcoin's value comes from the centralized infrastructure. It's actually not much different from offering different types of real-world collateral (perhaps licensed assets).

So, in the final analysis, because Bitcoin has this diverse centralized infrastructure, in fact, it becomes decentralized, which is the same goal that our Dai must achieve, so we must ensure that even Dai Depending on the SEC-regulated token-based securities, or relying on token-based merchandise outside of Singapore, the key principle is never to rely on a single regulator, a single custodian or a single jurisdiction.

We need to spread it across many different regulatory agencies on all continents and countries.

The governance layer will continue to monitor regulatory developments and substantially balance this risk. What we end up with is that Dai is not much different from Bitcoin in terms of relying on centralized infrastructure. Question 4: Most licensed assets are not well adopted, and some synthetic products duplicate their exposure. Do you think Maker will tend to actually license assets or decentralized synthetic assets?

In the short term, the most important thing is ETH, so there won't be so many other assets. For the stable currency Dai, it does have a good collateral and relies almost entirely on ETH. Therefore, in the short term, in fact, more is to gradually take measures and be familiar with new assets.

Soon, we will start voting on assets, but just as importantly, the process is gradual. Currently, we can rely on ETH as the core driver of stability and potential value. We are not eager to invest a lot of real assets right now, but this will happen sooner or later.

In the short term, this is more for us to prepare for future expansion, and we are also expanding on ETH. The setup phase is important because if one day we start to touch the range that ETH can handle, and then suddenly have to take a lot of risk and quickly inject a lot of new assets, then regular Dai holders face significant risks. Question 5: At present, someone has created a MCD replica called Kava on Cosmos, which is bet on inter-chain transmission. So how important is interoperability between Maker and Dai and other chains?

I think it also has a very interesting new collateral approach. I don't think it's more important than our current update, because when it comes to a reliable decentralized collateral, ETH is actually the king. In terms of its importance, the only thing that can get close to ETH is of course BTC.

So don't pay too much attention to other blockchains, I think Bitcoin will also be a big step forward in entering Ethereum. Today, the wrapper class BTC actually exists, but the problem with WBTC is of course its hosting.

The general problem here is that Bitcoin's programmability is limited, and it is basically impossible to build a more decentralized cross-chain solution. Therefore, when you use Bitcoin as a collateral in the DeFi ecosystem, you will always run into some sort of counterparty risk. We must try to solve this problem with Maker, not just to make WBTC the only source of packaged bitcoin on the Ethereum platform. We want hundreds of different versions of the packaged bitcoin.

There are a lot of different attempts at this point, such as a project called tBTC, which uses a slightly different model and actually involves some guarantees. In fact, there are more projects that are doing things, so I think this development will be very exciting. Question 6. What role does Dai have when a technology giant (such as Facebook) and a national government (China) launch their own stable currency?

First of all, the state, the centralization of stable coins is always much smaller than the decentralized monetary system, so you can't really compare them. The problem with centralized credits is that they are always denominated in the currency of the region or country. Centralized stable coins and politics are so closely intertwined that you will see countries like Europe say: "Impossible, we will not use stable coins issued by US companies."

For China, they are pushing their legal digital currency and confronting Libra, and Libra even tries to use such arguments to stimulate regulators to release them.

In general, it seems that a new centralized stabilization currency is born every week. The reason why there is so much is that if you launch a centralized stable currency, you are almost providing a banking service. With banking services, your main product is trust.

If the customer chooses your stable currency, it is because they believe that you can guarantee that their money is safe enough, just as you choose to deposit the money in a bank. I believe that in the future we will usher in a world where there will be thousands of centralized stable coins that will be subject to very strict regulation and, to a certain extent, they will be driven by the authorities that control them.

In addition, the state will introduce protection-like content to prevent foreign authorities from violating the sovereignty of a country through its funds. In fact, I talked to the bankers of many of the world's top central banks, they are considering this issue, it seems that this is almost an arms race . The point I often hear is that they actually think of Dai as an excellent model.

This is especially the case when you are a small country. It is not attractive to transfer your monetary sovereignty to one of the big countries during the digital currency arms race. This is why Dai’s model is for these central banks. Long is attractive because Dai is virtually unbiased and has no geopolitical implications. It is a completely decentralized system and you have the same voice as everyone else.

In fact, there is another very interesting way to combine all of this together. Dai may use many or most of the centralized stabilization coins as collateral ! In fact, I think this is very likely . When each country has its own stable currency in the future, Dai is likely to be a bridge between them. So if you want to interact between the Chinese legal digital currency and Libra, Dai would be a good choice. Question 7: If you said that Dai should be neutral, why is it only anchored with USD?

The Special Drawing Rights (SDR) is of course the original idea.

But when it came to the real launch of a single collateral Dai and the introduction of the system into the real world, we began to really go deep into market research and realized that the current position of the dollar in the international financial and monetary system is deeply rooted.

If the average person does not want to hold his own currency (due to hyperinflation), or in some cases (such as certain parts of South America), the dollar will be the only currency that people trust. Therefore, we decided to link Dai with the US dollar when it was launched, because it would be the easiest to access users.

Of course, all aspects of Maker are completely controlled by Maker governance, so in the future, as the global landscape changes and the role of the dollar changes, perhaps Maker governance may change this anchoring policy. We can create a basket of currencies, or even a currency that is purely focused on independent purchasing power.

In addition, we can still provide assets that are pegged to the US dollar, because Maker does not have to be limited to one anchoring method, but also has Euro Dai and so on. We can have a separate new stable currency called US Dai and then still provide everything I mentioned before. As a rule, it is always important to try to satisfy all the user's needs, and first try to provide something that is useful to everyone. Question 8: Libra's influence is so big, how can Dai compete with it?

The advantage of DeFi over old players is that it is a neutral, fair platform that anyone can build here. In contrast, if you look at Facebook, Tencent, or any technology giant, they all have their own established ecosystem, and the boundaries are centered around who is working with whom and who is competing with. For DeFi, we have the opportunity to create a new platform where everyone can collaborate because there is no license, which creates the conditions for explosive innovation.

One of my favorite examples is of course InstaDapp. First of all, it is a great product. What InstaDapp does is combine the advantages of multiple DeFi protocols. For example, you can access Maker, Compound, and Uniswap simultaneously on one interface. Not only is it a place where you can access three different types of services, but it is also a place where you can group them together and create new ways to interact with them.

For example, you can generate Dai, which you can immediately convert to ETH in a very seamless process. The other cool thing is that it was built by two young people from India who have nothing to do with Maker and have never contacted the Maker Foundation. They just looked at the documentation and then Build a product that has been successful only through the power of the product, which is the real reason why DeFi has been developed around the world. This organic, unlicensed growth will help the world's 1.7 billion people without bank accounts begin to cross the current system.

There are also Argent wallets, Burner wallets, etc. In fact, there are many, many, we can not understand all the different projects, you will find some new projects that have been running for several months every day, we don’t even know them. does it exist!