✅ [RFC] mStable Governance Path Resolution


This RFC would like to gather feedback on summarizing the different MIPs that are resulting from MIP 29, put them to a vote and define the procedure of governance moving forward.


The mStable project is on a crossroad on moving forward, and this RFC seeks to pave the way for MIP 30, which will consolidate all the proposals in the forum into one vote to determine which of the available options should be taken to determine the path forward for the project and the DAO.

It is suggested to summarize each option in the MIP, and then put a Ranked Choice voting in place on Snapshot to decide which option be the winning path forward for the project.

Currently, the following options will be included in the MIP:

  • Default Project Sunset & DAO Sunset if proposals to continue are rejected
  • Acquisition by another protocol (exacts to be decided by the end of this week)


As per MIP 29, a vote needs to take place to determine which path Meta Governors would like to see the mStable project take, and this RFC paves the way for MIP 30, which will put to vote exactly this matter.


  • Clarity on path forward for mStable
  • Align interests on one common goal
  • Resolve uncertainty on future for the DAO


  • Overhead generated
  • Lack of explicit “reject completely” option, as an actionable path must be defined as of now

Next Steps

It is suggested that the community comment on this RFC in the coming days, and bearing no significant opposition or change in ideation, we would move ahead with this RFC in the coming weeks and create a formal draft proposal on Github to be used for review.

Meta Governors are encouraged to provide as much feedback as possible until then, so we can create the best possible outcome for mStable and its users.

Thanks @mZeroNine. I am of course in support of bringing all proposed options to a vote by MTA Governors.

I understand that the MIP will include more details of any potential acquisition proposals.

It will also be important to provide additional details around the shutdown option, in particular the timeframes for implementation and expected costs for the Builder subDAO and Ecosystem subDAO in implementing a shutdown and providing ongoing support. It will be important that, in voting for this option, Governors are also approving funding to allow these entities to carry out the shutdown and support operations, while giving certainty around future costs.

1 Like

gm everyone,

thanks for the feedback, and the MIP should make it to the forum by the EOD! :sunglasses:

Thanks for putting this RFC forward! Very valuable that we get this moving.

Sorry for the last addition, but I think we might need to think what happens in the scenario a M&A deal is voted upon and wins the vote, but then the deal falls through. What would happen in that case?

1 Like

Hi @dimsome

Thanks for the last minute feedback. As a ranked choice voting will be applied, the next winning vote in line will then become the winner of this proposal.

1 Like

With four proposals submitted to the forum, the Builder SubDAO wanted to update mStable stakeholders and interested parties on the next week of the M&A process. The Builder SubDAO is currently gathering feedback internally into a “Requirements for MIP doc” about items mentioned in RFC that we think should be fully clarified in the MIP.
This document will be sent shortly to the individual teams (by tomorrow latest) and will be divided into 4 sections:

  1. Team (member migration)
  2. Product (vision with the existing product line, potential transition, beyond current product line)
  3. Governance/Costs
  4. Deal terms. @Alastor (Builder SubDAO’s M&A advisor) will be owning this 4th section

Lastly, the deadline communicated to interested parties for the publication of the MIP is Friday, 17th of March, 23:59:59 UTC

1 Like