MakerDAO changed the rules for borrowing USDS overnight. Who is behind this hasty decision? Is there an interest group trying to seize power at this leading DeFi protocol?
Social network X is making waves in the news of an unusual emergency governance vote at MakerDAO, the leading decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol.
This incident raises many questions about the transparency and fairness of MakerDAO's governance system, and raises big questions about the future of decentralized governance.
It all started with an urgent proposal that suddenly appeared on the MakerDAO forum on February 18, 2025. This proposal was passed in record speed, in just a short time.
The main content of the proposal is to significantly increase the amount of USDS (MakerDAO's stablecoin) that can be borrowed using MKR (MakerDAO's governance token) as collateral, while lowering the collateral requirement from 200% to 125%.
The reason given for this emergency proposal was "to protect against a potential administrative attack". However, it is worth mentioning that no actual attacks have been identified or announced. In addition, the proposal bypasses MakerDAO's standard governance processes, which require thorough discussion and voting time.
PaperImperium account shared on X. Source:X/@ImperiumPaper
Another notable point is that several community members of MakerDAO (@ImperiumPaper) were banned from the forum and other communication channels of the protocol in the middle of the vote. This raises doubts about whether there is an attempt to "silence" dissent.
Many people question the authenticity of the reason for "protection from administrative attacks". It is unclear what kind of attack will be solved by increasing the amount of borrowing and reducing the mortgage requirements for MKR. Moreover, banning critics further raises doubts about the real motive behind the move.
This comes as some MKR holders are interested in reforming to restore profitability and growth for MakerDAO after a long period of stagnation. GFX Labs, for example, submitted 5 reform proposals, all of which follow the process and are designed to improve governance and increase MKR value. These recommendations include:
Request budget disclosure
End discrimination against DAI holders in savings rates
Termination of mandatory anonymity for Maker contributors
Redirecting marketing budgets to cross-chain markets with growth potential
Guaranteed allocation of 25% SPK to MKR holders
The contrast between these transparent reform proposals and the emergency proposal is controversial. While reform proposals follow the process, emergency proposals ignore the process. Moreover, it appears that proposals aimed at increasing the value of MKR under the rule are being moderated, while a sudden, overnight vote for unsafe lending to MKR was passed.
The question is: Who will benefit from this move? Allowing more USDS to be borrowed in MKR with LTV is riskier than anywhere else in DeFi, right after the critics were silenced, is it a coincidence?
Many people are concerned that this incident creates a dangerous precedent for DeFi governance. If votes can be rushed without a clear explanation, if critics can be banned for no reason, and if rules can be ignored whenever it is beneficial, then governance is a farce.
It's worth mentioning that MakerDAO has a reputation for being a "boring but process-based" DAO that adheres to the rules and does everything right. Therefore, this incident became even more confusing. Many people question the real motive behind these actions and who is really behind pulling the strings.
This incident is not only a problem for MakerDAO but also a problem with the integrity of DeFi governance. If a leading protocol can do this, what prevents others from doing the same? Is this the beginning of the collapse of decentralized decision-making?
Some new information suggests that there may have been an attack on the Sky Ecosystem (part of MakerDAO).
Accordingly, a group, including ImperiumPaper (who was banned by MakerDAO above), conspired to manipulate oracles to liquidate Runes and gain control. This plan is said to be related to the appropriation of the project's funds. However, these allegations have not been confirmed.
