In the previous two articles, we have already understood Spark's product structure and airdrop mechanism, but whether a DeFi project can truly go far depends critically on the people and power behind it - is the governance structure healthy? Is the funding mechanism transparent? Is the dependency path safe and controllable?
In today's article, we will fully analyze Spark's governance structure, the deep binding relationship with MakerDAO, and the potential structural risks it may face.
I. Governance structure: Who does Spark belong to?
Spark's governance structure is built and led by Sky Protocol. Sky Protocol is not merely a technical team, but a 'functional governance agency' within the MakerDAO community promoting the expansion of the DAI ecosystem.
Currently, Spark's governance characteristics include:
✅ Continues to use MakerDAO's governance process (proposal → voting → execution);
✅ Most parameters (such as borrowing and lending rates, collateral types) are managed by Sky;
❗ Substantial decision-making still highly relies on the core team and foundation members;
❗ SPK has not yet activated on-chain governance functions, and community voting is still in the expected stage.
In other words, Spark currently resembles a product platform in a 'quasi-DAO' state, with true decentralized governance yet to be realized.
II. The path binding relationship with MakerDAO
Spark is not developing outside of MakerDAO, but is deeply 'nested' within its system, with core dependencies reflected in:
（1）Stablecoin system: Spark mainly promotes DAI, and its savings interest rate mechanism is directly based on Maker's DSR (DAI Savings Rate).
（2）Governance path: Spark adopts Maker-style governance logic, replicating Maker's governance structure in a certain sense.
（3）Technical modules: Reuse key facilities such as Oracle, D3M modules, and security audit paths provided by Maker.
（4）Financial role division:
MakerDAO is similar to a 'central bank', responsible for the issuance and stability mechanism of DAI;
Spark acts like a 'commercial bank', responsible for lending, storage, and fund rescheduling.
In summary: Spark is a functional extension under the Maker system, rather than an independently developed lending platform.
III. Potential risk analysis
Although Spark has built a complete product path, it must also face its three types of structural risks:
（1）Delay in the implementation of decentralized governance
Current governance is led by the internal team of Sky Protocol, SPK has not yet entered an active governance stage;
The DAO proposal mechanism still lacks high-frequency participation and community motivation;
Core parameters are preset by the team, and transparency does not equate to decentralization.
Potential risk: Governance imbalance, forming a 'technologically strong management' model, which will be difficult to correct once the team's direction is wrong.
（2）Ecological binding to MakerDAO, strategy fluctuations may indirectly suffer.
DSR interest rate adjustments directly affect Spark's savings returns;
If Maker becomes unstable due to regulatory policies or internal governance changes, Spark will be directly impacted;
Long-term single binding to DAI will limit Spark's ability to expand across stablecoin assets.
Potential risk: Structural coupling is too strong, lacking multi-asset adaptability.
（3）Cross-protocol liquidity scheduling is still experimental.
Spark's 'liquidity layer' will schedule funds into external protocols like Aave, Compound, Uniswap V4;
While this increases returns, it also introduces more uncontrollable risks, such as:
Oracle errors;
Clearing path disconnection;
Third-party contract failures or governance issues;
Currently, there is no complete transparent funding scheduling report or real-time risk exposure management tool provided by Spark.
Potential risk: Long execution chain, many failure points, lack of public audit reports, and high black box risk.
IV. A stage product of 'controllable centralization'?
Spark's current form resembles: 'A centralized operational product with a vision of decentralization'
Its on-chain governance structure is still being built, user sovereignty has not been fully released, but the technical architecture and ecological synergy have completed a high degree of organizational construction.
This model can quickly promote product iteration in the short term, but it also means:
It relies on Sky and its funding sources for sustained execution;
It requires trust that team governance will not deviate;
It must accept the time cost of 'decentralizing governance'.
V. Summary: Risk is not a defect, but a part of the design logic.
Spark's current form is not perfect, but perhaps it is precisely its clear understanding of its goals - making the stablecoin ecosystem thicker is much more complex than simply creating a pure asset lending protocol.
Its governance challenges are precisely the concentrated point of contradictions that will inevitably be faced in the expansion of the Maker ecosystem:
How to find a balance between composability and systemicity?
