What are the reasons why the market assigns such a low price to the Maker token (MKR/SKY)?

At this moment, the project has a market capitalization of around 1.2 billion, while if we annualize the company’s expenses based on the September expenditure, the company would be spending close to 300 million per year.

These expenses are largely covered by tokens that are sold on the market. The new token issuance increases the supply by 3% annually, which will be used for marketing purposes and will primarily create downward pressure on the asset.

The revenue the project receives in DAI goes directly towards covering the entire structure, especially funding projects from which token holders will not directly benefit from the value creation that occurs.

The market ultimately perceives that the SKY token is not able to capture the value generated by the project, and it is under significant pressure due to the continuous selling of tokens on the market. The project’s revenues are primarily used to cover the operational costs that sustain the structure of the project. Therefore, in an environment where decisions continue in this direction, the rational decision is to prioritize holding cash to benefit as a customer rather than continuing as an investor.

What is the endgame in this scenario? The inertia suggests that the project’s market capitalization could continue to decline, potentially leading to governance risks where, with a significantly undervalued token price, a large portion of the project could be acquired to change the current policies. However, given that there are major MKR holders, for this to be a real possibility, a new investor would need to acquire a majority stake, and even then, it would not be easy to truly change the project's structure. Therefore, I believe this scenario is unlikely to occur. What seems far more probable is the continued depreciation of the token.

The other scenario is that the project could adopt a more reasonable policy for token holders. This seems like the rational choice, considering that it is the token holders who are voting on these decisions. However, in many cases, they are also receiving income as contributors, which creates a significant conflict of interest within DAOs, as they hold both roles

Investor or TokenHolders Role

It is common to heavily criticize the role of capital and investors in a company, as they tend to be perceived as agents that parasitize economic activity. This is an idea that can also be seen in some of the decisions made within MakerDAO. Generally, ownership is given to the community, which includes both direct contributors and the protocol's clients, while efforts are made to sideline or push out investors in this environment. However, this approach often backfires, because in an ownership economy where capital is widely distributed among many people, penalizing investors as parasitic ultimately penalizes everyone who plays that role.

This situation leads us to a space where projects are run by the workers who lead them, which brings forth traditional agency problems, as seen in the corporate world. It is in these companies, where operations become professionalized and investors are sidelined, that corporate structures consolidate and begin to prioritize their own interests over those of the company. This is what typically leads large companies to become less competitive and eventually disappear. Investors often avoid trying to change these structures and instead choose to sell their tokens.

Conclusion

The market, in real time, continuously assesses these situations. What the price ultimately reflects is the sentiment of many token holders who perceive that the project is not catering to those savers, and that the project’s positive development will not change that situation. Perhaps there are other opportunities to finance different projects or shift into a role as DAI investors within the project.

What are the reasons why the market assigns such a low price to the Maker token (MKR/SKY)?

At this moment, the project has a market capitalization of around 1.2 billion, while if we annualize the company’s expenses based on the September expenditure, the company would be spending close to 300 million per year.

These expenses are largely covered by tokens that are sold on the market. The new token issuance increases the supply by 3% annually, which will be used for marketing purposes and will primarily create downward pressure on the asset.

The revenue the project receives in DAI goes directly towards covering the entire structure, especially funding projects from which token holders will not directly benefit from the value creation that occurs.

The market ultimately perceives that the SKY token is not able to capture the value generated by the project, and it is under significant pressure due to the continuous selling of tokens on the market. The project’s revenues are primarily used to cover the operational costs that sustain the structure of the project. Therefore, in an environment where decisions continue in this direction, the rational decision is to prioritize holding cash to benefit as a customer rather than continuing as an investor.

What is the endgame in this scenario? The inertia suggests that the project’s market capitalization could continue to decline, potentially leading to governance risks where, with a significantly undervalued token price, a large portion of the project could be acquired to change the current policies. However, given that there are major MKR holders, for this to be a real possibility, a new investor would need to acquire a majority stake, and even then, it would not be easy to truly change the project's structure. Therefore, I believe this scenario is unlikely to occur. What seems far more probable is the continued depreciation of the token.

The other scenario is that the project could adopt a more reasonable policy for token holders. This seems like the rational choice, considering that it is the token holders who are voting on these decisions. However, in many cases, they are also receiving income as contributors, which creates a significant conflict of interest within DAOs, as they hold both roles

Investor or TokenHolders Role

It is common to heavily criticize the role of capital and investors in a company, as they tend to be perceived as agents that parasitize economic activity. This is an idea that can also be seen in some of the decisions made within MakerDAO. Generally, ownership is given to the community, which includes both direct contributors and the protocol's clients, while efforts are made to sideline or push out investors in this environment. However, this approach often backfires, because in an ownership economy where capital is widely distributed among many people, penalizing investors as parasitic ultimately penalizes everyone who plays that role.

This situation leads us to a space where projects are run by the workers who lead them, which brings forth traditional agency problems, as seen in the corporate world. It is in these companies, where operations become professionalized and investors are sidelined, that corporate structures consolidate and begin to prioritize their own interests over those of the company. This is what typically leads large companies to become less competitive and eventually disappear. Investors often avoid trying to change these structures and instead choose to sell their tokens.

Conclusion

The market, in real time, continuously assesses these situations. What the price ultimately reflects is the sentiment of many token holders who perceive that the project is not catering to those savers, and that the project’s positive development will not change that situation. Perhaps there are other opportunities to finance different projects or shift into a role as DAI investors within the project.