Introduction: From Critique to Evolution

A few months ago, I published a critical analysis of MakerDAO’s governance model, arguing that despite impressive protocol growth, its value accrual mechanisms—particularly for MKR holders—were fundamentally broken. MKR had become a governance trap: token holders consistently approved initiatives that diluted their own stake in the project, funding an internal ecosystem with minimal accountability or returns. The disconnect between MakerDAO’s growing revenues and MKR’s market performance was alarming.

It’s important to clarify that this critique was written in the context of the information publicly available at that time, without the benefit of knowing the final details of how Sky and SPK would eventually be implemented. It wasn’t just my personal opinion; it was widely reflected in market sentiment, which priced MKR at irrationally low levels, suggesting broad skepticism about the protocol’s direction.

Since then, the launch of SPK and the architectural transformation of Maker through the Sky framework have changed the conversation. This article revisits those early concerns in light of the SPK launch, evaluates how much has actually changed, and whether Sky represents a sustainable path forward—or merely MKR 2.0 under a new name.

The Governance Problem: A Token Left Behind

At the time of writing, MakerDAO had reported gross protocol revenues of $311.9 million in 2024—up 190% from the previous year. Net earnings rose by 224%, reaching $70.4 million. And yet, the MKR token continued to underperform. Governance decisions had led to a bloated structure, financing startups and projects whose value did not flow back to token holders.

The System Surplus mechanism, once designed to buy back MKR, was repurposed to provide liquidity to internal initiatives. This may have been operationally sound—but it left MKR investors holding a token increasingly disconnected from the protocol’s financial reality.

SPK and the Strategic Reinvention of MakerDAO

The launch of SPK marks a turning point. It is the first "Genesis Star" to emerge from Sky, Maker’s newly structured meta-protocol layer. With an investment of approximately $22 million, Spark has already delivered over $300 million in value to the Sky treasury through SPK tokens.

These assets are now scheduled for distribution: 30% to SKY stakers over 10 years (boosting yields by 20–30%), and 70% to USDS holders, replacing the savings rate and capturing value for the protocol.

This new model addresses several of the earlier critiques:

• Treasury value is directly linked to strategic investments.

• Rewards are long-term, structured, and transparent.

• Operational burden is shifted to Stars like Spark, reducing Sky’s overhead.

Importantly, this is no longer about hoping MKR holders will benefit indirectly. With Sky, tokenholders receive direct, measurable benefits.

Spin-Off Logic: Modularity with Purpose

One of the most overlooked but critical benefits of SPK’s launch is the offloading of infrastructure and operational costs from Sky to Spark. Sky is no longer trying to be everything at once. It is becoming what MKR failed to be: a lean, capital-efficient, ossified core.

The decision not to airdrop SPK to MKR holders initially caused debate. However, the distribution of tokens follows a logic similar to vesting schedules typically used for large investors—ensuring that value is realized over time, rather than assumed upfront. This structure supports healthier price discovery for SPK and aligns long-term incentives with protocol growth.

A Strengthened Treasury, A New Financial Foundation

Sky now holds $419 million in SPK tokens—nearly 75% of its treasury. With a market cap of $2.1 billion, this asset base is no longer just symbolic: it supports staking rewards, future growth, and ecosystem resilience. Moreover, Spark will contribute even more value through a double agent upkeep mechanism—0.5% of its market cap annually to USDS holders for 20 years, starting in year 10.

SPK has also achieved remarkable liquidity—surpassing even MKR. This not only de-risks the asset for holders but positions Spark as a legitimate revenue engine beyond Sky’s original lending scope.

Reflections and Remaining Concerns

Despite these improvements, the question remains: can Sky avoid becoming MKR 2.0?

• Delegation dynamics have not fundamentally changed.

• Treasury-held SPK tokens’ role in governance and profit-sharing remains unclear.

• The long-term sustainability of governance incentives is still unproven.

Moreover, while this restructuring is undoubtedly a positive development—one that increases the protocol’s resource base and improves its ability to offer competitive yields for USDS—the core challenge remains: growing the stablecoin’s market capitalization. In the current market environment, adoption has stalled, and the protocol has yet to find a strong growth lever that can sustainably scale USDS demand.

Nevertheless, the SPK launch shows a willingness to experiment, to evolve. It answers many of the frustrations expressed months ago—and opens the door for a new model where protocols don’t just grow, but compound value back into their ecosystems.

Conclusion: From Governance Trap to Blueprint

Sky’s transformation offers a powerful lesson: good governance isn’t about controlling outcomes, but designing structures that create enduring alignment. While MKR may have failed to capture the value it helped create, Sky is showing signs of learning from that experience.

If Stars like Spark continue to succeed—and Sky remains disciplined in managing its treasury, staking rewards, and governance scope—this could become the blueprint for sustainable, ossified protocol growth in DeFi. The path from critique to reinvention is not linear, but Sky might be proof that it is possible.

Introduction: From Critique to Evolution

A few months ago, I published a critical analysis of MakerDAO’s governance model, arguing that despite impressive protocol growth, its value accrual mechanisms—particularly for MKR holders—were fundamentally broken. MKR had become a governance trap: token holders consistently approved initiatives that diluted their own stake in the project, funding an internal ecosystem with minimal accountability or returns. The disconnect between MakerDAO’s growing revenues and MKR’s market performance was alarming.

It’s important to clarify that this critique was written in the context of the information publicly available at that time, without the benefit of knowing the final details of how Sky and SPK would eventually be implemented. It wasn’t just my personal opinion; it was widely reflected in market sentiment, which priced MKR at irrationally low levels, suggesting broad skepticism about the protocol’s direction.

Since then, the launch of SPK and the architectural transformation of Maker through the Sky framework have changed the conversation. This article revisits those early concerns in light of the SPK launch, evaluates how much has actually changed, and whether Sky represents a sustainable path forward—or merely MKR 2.0 under a new name.

The Governance Problem: A Token Left Behind

At the time of writing, MakerDAO had reported gross protocol revenues of $311.9 million in 2024—up 190% from the previous year. Net earnings rose by 224%, reaching $70.4 million. And yet, the MKR token continued to underperform. Governance decisions had led to a bloated structure, financing startups and projects whose value did not flow back to token holders.

The System Surplus mechanism, once designed to buy back MKR, was repurposed to provide liquidity to internal initiatives. This may have been operationally sound—but it left MKR investors holding a token increasingly disconnected from the protocol’s financial reality.

SPK and the Strategic Reinvention of MakerDAO

The launch of SPK marks a turning point. It is the first "Genesis Star" to emerge from Sky, Maker’s newly structured meta-protocol layer. With an investment of approximately $22 million, Spark has already delivered over $300 million in value to the Sky treasury through SPK tokens.

These assets are now scheduled for distribution: 30% to SKY stakers over 10 years (boosting yields by 20–30%), and 70% to USDS holders, replacing the savings rate and capturing value for the protocol.

This new model addresses several of the earlier critiques:

• Treasury value is directly linked to strategic investments.

• Rewards are long-term, structured, and transparent.

• Operational burden is shifted to Stars like Spark, reducing Sky’s overhead.

Importantly, this is no longer about hoping MKR holders will benefit indirectly. With Sky, tokenholders receive direct, measurable benefits.

Spin-Off Logic: Modularity with Purpose

One of the most overlooked but critical benefits of SPK’s launch is the offloading of infrastructure and operational costs from Sky to Spark. Sky is no longer trying to be everything at once. It is becoming what MKR failed to be: a lean, capital-efficient, ossified core.

The decision not to airdrop SPK to MKR holders initially caused debate. However, the distribution of tokens follows a logic similar to vesting schedules typically used for large investors—ensuring that value is realized over time, rather than assumed upfront. This structure supports healthier price discovery for SPK and aligns long-term incentives with protocol growth.

A Strengthened Treasury, A New Financial Foundation

Sky now holds $419 million in SPK tokens—nearly 75% of its treasury. With a market cap of $2.1 billion, this asset base is no longer just symbolic: it supports staking rewards, future growth, and ecosystem resilience. Moreover, Spark will contribute even more value through a double agent upkeep mechanism—0.5% of its market cap annually to USDS holders for 20 years, starting in year 10.

SPK has also achieved remarkable liquidity—surpassing even MKR. This not only de-risks the asset for holders but positions Spark as a legitimate revenue engine beyond Sky’s original lending scope.

Reflections and Remaining Concerns

Despite these improvements, the question remains: can Sky avoid becoming MKR 2.0?

• Delegation dynamics have not fundamentally changed.

• Treasury-held SPK tokens’ role in governance and profit-sharing remains unclear.

• The long-term sustainability of governance incentives is still unproven.

Moreover, while this restructuring is undoubtedly a positive development—one that increases the protocol’s resource base and improves its ability to offer competitive yields for USDS—the core challenge remains: growing the stablecoin’s market capitalization. In the current market environment, adoption has stalled, and the protocol has yet to find a strong growth lever that can sustainably scale USDS demand.

Nevertheless, the SPK launch shows a willingness to experiment, to evolve. It answers many of the frustrations expressed months ago—and opens the door for a new model where protocols don’t just grow, but compound value back into their ecosystems.

Conclusion: From Governance Trap to Blueprint

Sky’s transformation offers a powerful lesson: good governance isn’t about controlling outcomes, but designing structures that create enduring alignment. While MKR may have failed to capture the value it helped create, Sky is showing signs of learning from that experience.

If Stars like Spark continue to succeed—and Sky remains disciplined in managing its treasury, staking rewards, and governance scope—this could become the blueprint for sustainable, ossified protocol growth in DeFi. The path from critique to reinvention is not linear, but Sky might be proof that it is possible.