2025-12-26 10:20:22

MakerDAO's subDAO model is worth a deep dive. Carefully examining the collaboration architecture between MakerDAO and Spark, the core savings and lending business is completely separated, while Spark maintains growth by continuously injecting USDS and DAI—remarkably, the profits generated from these businesses do not need to be fed back into the MakerDAO ecosystem.

On the surface, MakerDAO appears to have made a "severance" decision, but what is the underlying logic? Is it a strategic consideration or a structural mistake? Many DeFi projects are indeed observing this case—whether independently operating core businesses can generate greater ecosystem value, or if this separation will gradually marginalize the main protocol.

MakerDAO's choice of this route may have been intended to expand the ecosystem through subDAO, but from the perspective of profit distribution, whether this model can be sustainable in the long term is a question worth discussing. How do other DeFi projects view this kind of ecosystem segmentation strategy?

DAI-0,04%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

21 Likes

Reward
21
10
Repost
Share

Comment

Add a comment

BridgeJumper

· 2025-12-29 02:41

This division is a bit harsh; core business profits are not even being returned to the main entity... It feels like they're weakening themselves.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationWatcher

· 2025-12-28 14:30

This move is indeed a bit sneaky... If Spark takes all the profits, what do you call an ecosystem?

View OriginalReply0

PerpetualLonger

· 2025-12-28 13:27

Hmm, this round of cutting seems like they're trying to grow the cake, but in reality, they're betting that Spark won't backlash... No, it definitely will backlash. The question is when.

I see this as MakerDAO gambling big, betting that the more independent Spark becomes, the stronger its ecosystem. But in reality? All the profits belong to Spark, and all the risks are borne by MakerDAO. Who came up with this?

By the way, if Spark really takes off, what value does MKR have anymore... Forget it, I'll just keep adding to my position and hold steady. This is the last chance.

View OriginalReply0

ser_we_are_early

· 2025-12-27 01:14

To be honest, Maker is playing this game a bit aggressively. They spun off their core business but still haven't distributed dividends? It feels like they're digging their own grave.

View OriginalReply0

LonelyAnchorman

· 2025-12-26 10:46

I feel like Maker's move is a bit of a gamble. Is it really worth it to give away the juicy parts?

View OriginalReply0

BrokenYield

· 2025-12-26 10:45

ngl, this is just maker slowly bleeding out through a thousand cuts. they're calling it "strategic independence" but it's really just protocol suicide in slow motion. once spark captures those yield flows, there's literally no reason for anyone to actually hold or use maker anymore. seen this movie before—2017 called, wants its failed governance model back.

Reply0

TxFailed

· 2025-12-26 10:42

nah this is giving "we spun off the profit machine then wondered why we're broke" energy... technically speaking, separating core biz from governance is actually how you tank a protocol long-term. learned this the hard way watching like three defi collapses lol

Reply0

FreeRider

· 2025-12-26 10:38

Basically, Maker's move here is a gamble—betting that Spark's independence will lead to faster growth and stronger recovery. But the problem is, Spark has taken all the core profits, so how does Maker itself survive?

It feels a bit like shedding baggage, under the guise of ecosystem expansion.

View OriginalReply0

SelfMadeRuggee