MakerDAO Splits into Two Due to Founder’s ‘Endgame’ Proposal

• The MakerDAO community split in two after unveiling the “Endgame” proposal.
• The proposal created two opposing factions within the DAO: MetaDAOists and Constitutionalists.
• Constitutionalists will be a part of Dai’s team, while MetaDAOists will create and implement the proposal.

The MakerDAO community’s most significant decentralized finance (DeFi) system splits into two after founder Rune Christensen announced the “Endgame” proposal to restructure and decentralize the protocol.

DeFi’s unofficial central bank will create so-called MetaDAOs and activate a new vault after a majority voted on Monday in support of submitting eight Maker Improvement Proposals (MIP) to increase revenue for the protocol.

“We are excited to see the community’s reaction to our proposal to decentralize and restructure MakerDAO,” said Dai, co-founder of MakerDAO. 

Furthermore, he added, “This demonstrates their commitment to improving the quality of DeFi infrastructure and their belief in our vision for a more open, democratic financial system.”

However, in addition to carrying ahead one of the project’s most significant restructurings in its history, the action has also led to the formation of two rival factions within the DAO: MetaDAOists and Constitutionalists. 

While the Constitutionalists oppose the Endgame plan, which was the idea of Maker co-founder Rune Christensen, MetaDAOists support it.

In addition, some Makers are accusing Christensen of trying to hoard power and influence over the protocol. Also, some have accused Dai of attempting to centralize MakerDAO.

Nevertheless, the community has voiced its support for the initiative and is looking forward to seeing the results of the proposed changes.

Meanwhile, the MetaDAOists are united behind Christensen’s recommendations, which constitute the essential work required to implement the Maker co-“Endgame founder’s Plan,” a strategy to make the protocol resistant to blacklisting in the aftermath of the Tornado Cash Sanctions.

It’s significant to note that Monday’s vote was a ratification rather than an executive vote. Before being executed on-chain, each MIP will be the subject of additional votes.