Sky USDS

Region	Global
Status	Active

M69 Score

M69 Alignment2.9

Weakly aligned

1.02.03.04.05.0

Monetary Sovereignty2.7

Issuance (3x) + Stability (2x) + Fiat Indep. (2x)

Civilizational Durability3.1

Sovereignty + Governance + Resilience

Universal Adoption3.3

Traction (2x) + Inclusivity

Iss Mod3x

2.8

Stability2x

3.5

Fia Ind & Int2x

1.8

Traction2x

3.4

Sovereignty

3.1

Governance

3.0

Resilience

3.3

Inclusivity

3.0

Scored against the Money2069 Manifesto — see methodology. Higher = more aligned.

Key Findings

Traction is the strongest category (3.4/5.0)because Sky/MakerDAO has 8+ years of continuous operation, $12.9B TVL, 610K+ active users, 86% USDS supply growth in 2025, and deep institutional partnerships including Stripe/Privy integration -- making it one of the most battle-tested DeFi protocols in existence.

Fiat Independence is the weakest category (1.8/5.0)because the entire protocol is architecturally defined by its USD peg -- the unit of account is borrowed from fiat, collateral is increasingly fiat-dependent (US Treasuries, USDC), and the Endgame strategy actively deepens rather than reduces fiat entanglement with $3.5B+ in planned RWA deployments.

The central tension is that Sky's greatest operational strength (RWA yield generating $435M+ revenue) is its greatest M69 weaknessthe same Treasury Bill collateral that makes the protocol financially sustainable and the savings rate competitive also makes it fundamentally dependent on US monetary policy, banking infrastructure, and fiat custody arrangements.

Governance formalization is strong but effective power is concentratedwhile the process (Atlas, on-chain voting, GSM time-locks) is among the most sophisticated in DeFi, the reality is that 4 entities controlled 98% of votes in the Sky rebrand decision, and the founder holds effective control through low voter turnout despite owning only 9% of tokens.

Resilience benefits from demonstrated crisis survivalunlike untested protocols, Sky has navigated Black Thursday (2020), the UST collapse (2022), and SVB contagion (2023) with its core mechanism intact, earning it a 3.3/5.0 resilience score anchored by real-world evidence rather than theoretical claims.

Big takeaway: Sky USDS is the gold standard of fiat-integrated DeFi stablecoins but scores poorly on M69 precisely because the M69 vision demands fiat independence.For investors and partners seeking decentralized access to USD-denominated yield, Sky is compelling; for those seeking money that can outlive the dollar, the architectural dependency on USD is a structural limitation that no amount of governance sophistication or DeFi innovation can overcome.

Detailed Rating Breakdown

Framework v0.2-alpha · Rated 2026-04-12

Sky (formerly MakerDAO) is one of the oldest and most influential DeFi protocols, operating continuously since 2017. Its stablecoin USDS (formerly DAI) is an overcollateralized, USD-pegged stablecoin backed by a mix of crypto collateral (ETH, stETH, WBTC) and real-world assets (primarily US Treasury Bills). As of early 2026, USDS has a supply exceeding $11 billion, the protocol holds approximately $12.9 billion in TVL, and it generates over $435 million in annualized revenue. The protocol rebranded from MakerDAO to Sky in August 2024 as part of Rune Christensen's "Endgame" strategy, introducing modular governance through semi-autonomous "Sky Stars" (SubDAOs) and expanding across 6+ blockchains via SkyLink bridges. From an M69 alignment perspective, Sky USDS presents a fundamental tension. Its architecture is impressively decentralized for a stablecoin -- smart contracts are open-source, audited by multiple firms, and users maintain self-custody of funds. Governance operates through on-chain voting with delegate structures, and the protocol has survived multiple severe crises including the March 2020 "Black Thursday" crash and the 2023 Silicon Valley Bank contagion. It has strong traction with hundreds of thousands of active users and deep DeFi integrations. The Sky Atlas provides constitutional-style governance with immutable alignment artifacts. However, Sky USDS is fundamentally antithetical to the M69 vision of fiat-independent money. It is hard-pegged 1:1 to the US Dollar, making its unit of account entirely borrowed from fiat. A growing majority of its collateral consists of US Treasuries and fiat-backed assets (over 60% of revenue derives from RWA). Supply is created exclusively through debt -- users borrow USDS against collateral via Vaults. The protocol's increasing reliance on banking infrastructure for RWA management, combined with the addition of a freeze function capability to USDS (upgradeable via governance), and significant governance concentration (four entities controlled 98% of votes in the Sky rebrand decision), represent structural gaps that no amount of technical sophistication can overcome from an M69 standpoint. Sky is an excellent fiat-integrated stablecoin, but it is not fiat-independent money.

Issuance Model3x

2.8

Code	Question	Score
IM-01	Is issuance permissionless?Anyone can open a Vault (CDP) on Sky Protocol by depositing collateral and minting USDS. No KYC, whitelist, or approval required -- but the user must lock overcollateral (a non-custodial on-chain action). The collateral types accepted are governed by MKR/SKY holders. [1][2]	4
IM-02	Is new supply created through debt?USDS is created purely through debt. Users borrow USDS against locked collateral in Vaults, paying a stability fee (interest). When users repay their debt, USDS is burned. This is textbook debt-based issuance -- the protocol's whitepaper explicitly describes it as a collateralized lending mechanism. [1][2]	1
IM-03	Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?Issuance is tied to crypto-native and financial collateral (ETH, stETH, WBTC, USDC, US Treasuries). While RWAs like Treasury Bills represent real-world financial instruments, they are not real-economy signals (labor output, GDP, commodity production). The supply expands when users want leverage, not when the real economy grows. [1][2]	2
IM-04	Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?USDS has no hard cap. Supply expands when users open Vaults and contracts when they repay. However, expansion is constrained by collateral requirements and Debt Ceiling parameters set by governance, not by economic activity signals. The system has circuit breakers (Debt Ceilings per collateral type). [1][2]	3
IM-05	Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?Yes. USDS is burned when users repay Vault debt, and also burned through liquidation auctions. Contraction is permissionless (any user can repay their debt). However, it depends on user-initiated redemption rather than automatic contraction. The system demonstrated real contraction during deleveraging events. [1][2]	4

Spending Power Stability2x

3.5

Code	Question	Score
SPS-01	What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?Sky uses multiple reactive mechanisms: the Dai Savings Rate (DSR) / Sky Savings Rate (SSR) adjusts yield to influence supply/demand; stability fees on Vaults create cost of capital pressure; liquidation auctions enforce collateral ratios; and the Peg Stability Module (PSM) allows direct 1:1 conversion with USDC. These are reactive threshold-based mechanisms rather than continuous algorithmic adjustment. [1][2]	3
SPS-02	What benchmark is used to measure spending power?USDS is pegged to the US dollar, a single reference currency that delivers moderate stability but with meaningful inflation (~2-3% annually). The USD provides a concrete stability target but does not preserve long-term spending power. [1][2]	2
SPS-03	How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?The USD peg is trivially verifiable -- USDS price feeds are available from multiple decentralized oracle networks (Chainlink, Chronicle) and centralized exchanges. Collateral ratios are visible on-chain. The stability measurement (deviation from $1.00) is fully public and auditable. [1][2]	4
SPS-04	What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?DAI/USDS has maintained <2% annualized deviation from its $1 target over 7+ years of live operation. While it experienced brief depegs during extreme market events (Black Thursday March 2020, SVB crisis March 2023), these were short-lived and the peg recovered quickly. Under normal conditions the peg holds within 0.5-1%. The multi-year track record of tight peg maintenance is among the best in DeFi. [1][2]	5
SPS-05	Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?Sky targets short-term price stability (daily peg to $1.00) only. Long-term purchasing power drift is explicitly not addressed -- as USD inflates, USDS purchasing power declines identically. The DSR/SSR rate (currently ~4% APY) partially offsets inflation but this is not framed as a purchasing power preservation mechanism. [1][2]	3
SPS-06	Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?USDS is fully permissionless and globally accessible on Ethereum and multiple other chains via SkyLink bridges. Anyone anywhere can mint, hold, and use USDS without geographic restrictions, KYC requirements, or membership. The stability mechanism functions identically for all users worldwide. [1]	5

Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x

1.8

Code	Question	Score
FI-01	What is the protocol's unit of account?USDS is hard-pegged 1:1 to the US Dollar. The unit of account is entirely borrowed from fiat. "1 USDS = 1 USD" is the foundational design principle. [1][2]	1
FI-02	What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?RWA-backed collateral (primarily US Treasuries) accounts for a substantial portion of backing, with RWA revenue generating over 60% of protocol income. The protocol also holds significant USDC via the PSM. Combined fiat/fiat-backed exposure likely exceeds 50%. Crypto collateral (ETH, stETH, WBTC) provides the remainder. [1][2]	2
FI-03	Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?Banking relationships are used for a significant function -- managing RWA collateral (US Treasuries held via arrangements with BlockTower, Monetalis, and institutional custodians). Core protocol runs on Ethereum without banks, but RWA revenue (60%+ of income) requires banking infrastructure. [1][2]	2
FI-04	Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?All critical price feeds are USD-denominated -- ETH/USD, BTC/USD, etc. Oracle sources include both decentralized (Chronicle) and centralized data providers. All collateral valuations happen in USD terms. [1][2]	2
FI-05	What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?If USD collapses, USDS collapses by definition. The entire system is denominated in USD, collateral is valued in USD, and the peg target IS USD. There is no migration path away from USD dependency. Rune Christensen once floated the idea of dropping the USD peg (after Tornado Cash sanctions) but no concrete plan was developed. [1][2]	1
FI-06	Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?No credible transition path exists. The Endgame plan actually increases fiat dependency through deeper RWA integration (Grove Star: $1B RWA deployment, Keel Star: $2.5B Solana expansion). The trend is toward more fiat integration, not less. Rune's 2022 comments about dropping the peg were speculative and never formalized into a roadmap. [1][2]	1
FI-07	Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?USDS operates on 6+ chains and is deeply integrated into DeFi. Theoretically, other protocols can build on top of USDS. However, no local or sectoral currencies have been denominated in USDS. The protocol's monolithic USD-peg design does not support local currency composability -- any currency built on USDS inherits the same USD peg. [1][2]	2
FI-08	Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?USDS is interoperable via standard ERC-20 and cross-chain bridges (SkyLink, Wormhole). It integrates with generic DeFi infrastructure (DEXs, lending protocols). However, no protocol-specific monetary standard for cross-system settlement or mutual recognition has been defined. Interoperability is generic crypto-level, not monetary-system-level. [1][2]	3

Traction2x

3.4

Code	Question	Score
TR-01	Is the project still active?Fully active, growing, and operational. USDS supply surged 86% YTD in 2025 to $9.86B, TVL reached $12.91B as of April 2026, protocol generated $435M annualized revenue. Active governance, new deployments on Solana, Arbitrum, Base. Continuous development via Endgame rollout. [1][2]	5
TR-02	How long has the project been in existence?MakerDAO launched Single Collateral DAI in December 2017 and Multi-Collateral DAI in November 2019. Rebranded to Sky/USDS in August 2024. Continuous operation for 8+ years. [1][2]	4
TR-03	How many active users does the project have?USDS accumulated over 610,837 active users as of February 2025. sUSDS savings pool holds $6.5B in deposits. The protocol operates across 6+ chains with deep DeFi integrations. However, many "users" are smart contracts or DeFi protocols, not individual humans. [1][2]	4
TR-04	How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?USDS/DAI is primarily used within DeFi rather than for merchant payments. Crypto.com Visa Card enables DAI spending at 80M+ merchants, but this is through a fiat conversion intermediary, not native acceptance. Direct merchant acceptance of USDS is minimal -- it functions as DeFi collateral and savings instrument, not a payment medium. [1][2]	2
TR-05	Is the currency used as a unit of account?USDS/DAI is never used as an independent unit of account. It is always quoted as equivalent to 1 USD. DeFi protocols price assets in USD terms using USDS as a dollar proxy. Nobody denominates wages, contracts, or prices in "USDS" independently of its dollar value. [1][2]	2
TR-06	Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?Rune Christensen remains actively involved as CEO, driving the Endgame strategy and Sky rebrand. He pushed through an emergency governance proposal in February 2025. Active development team continues with Endgame rollout, new Star deployments, and protocol upgrades. [1][2]	5
TR-07	What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?Extensive partnerships: Spark Protocol (lending), BlockTower and Monetalis (RWA management), Wormhole (bridging), Stripe/Privy integration (March 2026), multiple DeFi protocols (Aave, Uniswap, Compound). Integrated across 6+ chains. Well over 10 independent partner organizations. [1][2]	5
TR-08	Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?Extensively covered by major crypto and financial media (CoinDesk, Bloomberg, The Block). Cited in S&P Global credit analysis. Subject of peer-reviewed academic research on DAO governance (Frontiers, ScienceDirect). Referenced in ECB policy papers. [1][2]	5
TR-09	Is adoption organic -- not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?Mixed. Core DAI adoption was organic over many years (genuine utility for leverage and stablecoin access). However, recent USDS growth heavily incentivized -- SKY token rewards for migration, sUSDS savings rate subsidized by protocol surplus, liquidity mining programs on Solana and L2s. Retention without incentives is uncertain for newer USDS adopters. [1][2]	3
TR-10	What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?Strong growth: USDS supply surged 86% in 2025, TVL grew 38% in March 2026 alone to $7.52B, revenue estimated at $611.5M for 2026 (81% annual growth). Multi-chain expansion to Solana, Arbitrum, Base. SKY buyback program ($96M+ spent). [1][2]	5
TR-11	Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?The Endgame plan provides a long-term vision, and the Sky Atlas serves as a founding document with immutable alignment artifacts. However, the rebrand from MakerDAO to Sky has been divisive (only 4 entities controlled 98% of the rebrand vote). Community engagement is largely transactional (yield-driven). Cultural identity is weakened by the controversial rebrand and perception of governance centralization. [1][2]	3

Sovereignty

3.1

Code	Question	Score
SO-01	Can any single entity shut down the project?The core smart contracts on Ethereum cannot be shut down by any single entity. However, governance (controlled by SKY token holders) can modify parameters or trigger Emergency Shutdown. The protocol's increasing reliance on RWA custodians (BlockTower, Monetalis) creates disruption vectors -- these could be compelled by regulators. No single entity can permanently destroy the system though. [1][2]	3
SO-02	Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?Core smart contracts are fully open-source on GitHub (sky-ecosystem organization), audited by ChainSecurity and Cantina. Anyone can interact with contracts directly. Front-end (sky.money) is a convenience layer; alternative front-ends can be built. Depends on Ethereum L1 (permissioned in the sense of specific chain dependency). [1][2]	4
SO-03	Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?Sky Frontier Foundation is a legal entity, but the protocol operates across multiple jurisdictions. The DAO itself is not incorporated in a single country. However, RWA operations create significant US regulatory exposure, and Rune Christensen is a Danish citizen. Multi-jurisdictional but with US concentration risk through RWAs. [1][2]	3
SO-04	Does the project control or custody user funds?Fully non-custodial for USDS holders and Vault users. Users maintain self-custody of their USDS tokens and manage their own Vault positions. Smart contracts hold collateral in a trustless manner. No intermediary required at any point for core protocol usage. [1][2]	5
SO-05	Is the project resilient to key-person risk?Moderate key-person risk. Rune Christensen holds only ~9% of governance tokens but wields effective control due to low voter turnout. He pushed through emergency proposals in February 2025. However, operational knowledge is distributed across teams, and the protocol could technically continue without him through smart contract automation. [1][2]	3
SO-06	Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?Critical dependencies include: Ethereum L1 (for core contracts), Chronicle/Chainlink (oracles), RWA custodians (BlockTower, Monetalis, Coinbase Custody for some assets), and bridge providers (Wormhole for Solana). The RWA custodians represent significant third-party risk -- revocation would impair a major revenue source. [1][2]	2
SO-07	Can the project be censored -- can specific users or transactions be blocked?USDS smart contract uses a proxy-upgradeable pattern (UUPS) that could enable a freeze function through governance vote. The freeze function is not yet implemented but is explicitly planned as a future capability. Original DAI remains immutable and freeze-resistant. This is a censorship capability that exists by design but has not been exercised. [1][2]	3
SO-08	Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?Standard Ethereum pseudonymity. All transactions are publicly visible on-chain with amounts and addresses. No privacy features available or planned. Transaction history is fully transparent and can be linked to real-world identity with chain analysis tools. [1][2]	3
SO-09	Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?Monetary rules are on-chain and enforced by smart contracts. However, governance can modify critical parameters (stability fees, collateral ratios, debt ceilings) through executive votes. While there is a time-delay via the Governance Security Module (GSM) and votes are public, the UUPS proxy pattern means the entire contract can be upgraded. Changes require multi-step governance but there is no immutable monetary rule that cannot be changed. [1][2]	3

Governance

3.0

Code	Question	Score
GO-01	How are decisions about the project made?Fully formalized governance: on-chain polling for signal votes, executive votes for implementation, delegate system for participation, public discussion on forums (forum.skyeco.com). All proposals follow documented procedures. The Governance Security Module adds time-locks. Process is well-documented and consistently applied. [1][2]	4
GO-02	Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?Severe concentration. In the Sky rebrand vote, four entities controlled 98% (62,452 MKR) of total votes cast. S&P Global noted Rune Christensen has effective control with only 9% due to low turnout. Top 10 wallets hold 85.61% of SKY supply. Top 100 holders control >80% of voting power. [1][2]	2
GO-03	Is the governance process -- and the monetary mechanism itself -- transparent and publicly auditable?Excellent transparency. All proposals, votes, and outcomes are recorded on-chain. Forum discussions are public. Smart contract code is open-source and audited. The monetary mechanism (Vault system, stability fees, DSR) is fully on-chain and auditable. Anyone can verify collateral ratios, debt ceilings, and fee parameters in real time. [1][2]	4
GO-04	Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?Standard token-weighted voting with basic quorum. The system IS effectively captured by whales -- 4 entities controlled 98% of a major vote. Time-locks and the GSM raise the cost of capture somewhat, but governance is capturable via token accumulation. The emergency proposal episode in Feb 2025 demonstrated the founder's ability to push through changes quickly. [1][2]	2
GO-05	How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project proposed and executed?Structured process: forum discussion, on-chain poll, executive vote, GSM time-lock before execution. Community can debate but the concentrated token distribution means a small group can push through any change. The process is formal but the power distribution undermines its democratic intent. [1][2]	3
GO-06	Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?The Sky Atlas distinguishes between immutable alignment artifacts (core principles) and scope-bounded mutable artifacts (operational). In practice, monetary parameters (stability fees, DSR, debt ceilings) and operational decisions go through the same executive vote process. Some awareness of the distinction but no structural enforcement. [1][2]	3
GO-07	Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?The Sky Atlas (MIP101) defines immutable alignment artifacts as the foundational governing rules of the DAO. These are intended to become fully immutable once Endgame State is reached. Currently they can still be amended. The Atlas provides constitutional-level protection but it is not yet in its final immutable form. [1][2]	3
GO-08	Can the project's issuance rules be changed, and are monetary policy changes subject to stronger constraints than operational changes?Issuance parameters (debt ceilings, collateral types, stability fees) are changeable via the same executive vote process as any other change. No special supermajority or extended time-lock for monetary policy vs. operational decisions. The GSM time-lock applies to all changes equally. The Atlas aspires to protect core monetary rules but enforcement is not yet structural. [1][2]	3

Resilience

3.3

Code	Question	Score
RE-01	Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?Survived multiple severe crises: Black Thursday (March 2020) -- 43% ETH crash in one day caused $6.65M bad debt from zero-bid liquidation auctions, recovered via MKR debt auctions and parameter changes. SVB crisis (March 2023) -- DAI dropped to ~$0.85 due to USDC depegging, recovered when USDC re-pegged. Also survived the UST/Luna collapse without mechanism failure. Core mechanism held despite parameter adjustments being required. [1][2]	4
RE-02	Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?Good redundancy: multiple oracle providers (Chronicle, Chainlink), deployed across 6+ chains via SkyLink, multiple front-end interfaces, open-source code enables community forks. However, core protocol runs on Ethereum mainnet (single chain for core operations), and RWA custodians are concentrated points of failure. [1][2]	3
RE-03	Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?Emergency Shutdown mechanism allows orderly wind-down of the protocol, with Vault owners and USDS holders able to claim proportional collateral. All code is open-source and could be redeployed. Critical state is on-chain and publicly auditable. However, RWA recovery in a shutdown scenario would depend on legal processes with custodians. [1][2]	4
RE-04	Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?High complexity. The system involves Vaults, liquidation auctions, stability fees, DSR/SSR, PSM, oracle modules, Governance Security Module, debt auction system, surplus auctions, Endgame Stars, SkyLink bridges. Few people fully understand the entire system. Documentation exists but is distributed across multiple sources. The Endgame restructuring adds further complexity. [1][2]	2
RE-05	Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?Built on Ethereum (the largest smart contract platform). Expanding to Solana and multiple L2s via bridges. Core logic could theoretically be re-implemented on other EVM chains. However, the system is deeply integrated with Ethereum-specific infrastructure (ERC-20, EIP-1559, Ethereum governance). Migration would be extremely complex. [1][2]	3
RE-06	How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?Explicit stress mechanisms: overcollateralization ratios (150%+ for ETH), liquidation auctions, debt ceilings per collateral type, Emergency Shutdown as ultimate circuit breaker, PSM for direct 1:1 USDC conversion. These have been tested live during Black Thursday (2020) and SVB crisis (2023). System survived but required parameter adjustments and governance intervention during Black Thursday. [1][2]	4
RE-07	Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?Highly sustainable. Protocol generates $435M+ annualized revenue from stability fees and RWA yield. 2026 revenue projected at $611.5M. Expenses reduced 61.5% in 2025. Active SKY buyback program ($96M+) demonstrates surplus capacity. Self-sustaining with no dependence on external fundraising. [1][2]	5
RE-08	Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?Tightly coupled to Ethereum consensus (real-time, low-latency). Oracle feeds require continuous connectivity. Vault liquidations are time-sensitive. System cannot operate in disconnected or high-latency environments. Multi-century operation would require Ethereum to exist for centuries, which is plausible but unproven. [1]	2
RE-09	Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?Protocol is fully programmable via smart contract interfaces. AI agents can open Vaults, mint/burn USDS, interact with DSR, participate in liquidations -- all without human-specific requirements. No CAPTCHA or manual KYC for core functions. Smart contract composability is designed for programmatic interaction. [1][2]	4

Inclusivity

3.0

Code	Question	Score
IN-01	Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?Open to anyone with internet access and a crypto wallet. No KYC, nationality restriction, or credit check for core protocol usage. Minor practical barriers include requiring an Ethereum wallet and some initial crypto to pay gas fees. USDS on L2s (Arbitrum, Base) reduces gas cost barriers. [1][2]	4
IN-02	What is the minimum cost to start using the project?On Ethereum mainnet, gas fees for Vault creation can exceed $10-50 depending on congestion. On L2s (Arbitrum, Base), fees are under $1. To receive USDS via swap, fees are lower. Opening a Vault requires overcollateral (minimum ~$100+ of ETH or other collateral), creating a meaningful barrier. [1][2]	3
IN-03	Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?Not designed specifically for underbanked populations. USDS is accessible in theory but requires crypto literacy, an Ethereum wallet, and initial crypto assets. No specific outreach or design features targeting financially excluded communities. However, the permissionless nature means anyone with internet access can participate. [1][2]	3
IN-04	Does the project distribute economic benefits -- including seigniorage -- broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?Mixed. Protocol surplus flows to DSR (benefiting savers), SKY buybacks (benefiting token holders), and operational expenses. However, SKY token distribution is highly concentrated (85.61% in top 10 wallets). VC investors (a16z, Paradigm, Dragonfly) hold significant governance tokens from early investments. The buyback program primarily benefits large token holders. MKR holders received 24,000:1 SKY conversion ratio. [1][2]	2
IN-05	Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?Core protocol rules are identical for all participants -- same Vault terms, same stability fees, same liquidation rules. However, governance is plutocratic (token-weighted voting gives large holders disproportionate influence). RWA arrangements involve preferential terms for institutional partners (BlockTower, Monetalis). Delegate compensation creates a separate class of paid participants. [1][2]	3
IN-06	Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?Pseudonymous by default for core protocol usage. No KYC for opening Vaults, holding USDS, or using DSR. However, the planned freeze function capability suggests future surveillance-adjacent features. RWA operations require institutional-level KYC for custodians (not end users). Front-end interfaces may implement geo-blocking. [1][2]	4
IN-07	Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?No anti-concentration mechanisms. Staking rewards (SKY staking) are proportional to holdings, accelerating concentration. DSR/SSR yield is proportional to deposits. Token-weighted governance gives more power to larger holders. The 24,000:1 MKR-to-SKY conversion preserved existing wealth concentration. Design actively encourages concentration through yield mechanisms. [1][2]	1

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Sky USDS (formerly MakerDAO DAI) and what problem does it solve?

How is money created in Sky USDS (formerly MakerDAO DAI)?

Anyone can open a Vault (CDP) on Sky Protocol by depositing collateral and minting USDS. No KYC, whitelist, or approval required -- but the user must lock overcollateral (a non-custodial on-chain action). The collateral types accepted are governed by MKR/SKY holders.

How does Sky USDS (formerly MakerDAO DAI) maintain stable spending power?

Sky uses multiple reactive mechanisms: the Dai Savings Rate (DSR) / Sky Savings Rate (SSR) adjusts yield to influence supply/demand; stability fees on Vaults create cost of capital pressure; liquidation auctions enforce collateral ratios; and the Peg Stability Module (PSM) allows direct 1:1 conversion with USDC. These are reactive threshold-based mechanisms rather than continuous algorithmic adjustment.

Is Sky USDS (formerly MakerDAO DAI) independent from fiat currencies?

USDS is hard-pegged 1:1 to the US Dollar. The unit of account is entirely borrowed from fiat. "1 USDS = 1 USD" is the foundational design principle.

Who controls Sky USDS (formerly MakerDAO DAI) and can it be shut down?

The core smart contracts on Ethereum cannot be shut down by any single entity. However, governance (controlled by SKY token holders) can modify parameters or trigger Emergency Shutdown. The protocol's increasing reliance on RWA custodians (BlockTower, Monetalis) creates disruption vectors -- these could be compelled by regulators.

How widely adopted is Sky USDS (formerly MakerDAO DAI) today?

USDS accumulated over 610,837 active users as of February 2025. sUSDS savings pool holds $6.5B in deposits. The protocol operates across 6+ chains with deep DeFi integrations.

Is Sky USDS (formerly MakerDAO DAI) still active and growing?

Fully active, growing, and operational. USDS supply surged 86% YTD in 2025 to $9.86B, TVL reached $12.91B as of April 2026, protocol generated $435M annualized revenue. Active governance, new deployments on Solana, Arbitrum, Base.

What are the main risks or weaknesses of Sky USDS (formerly MakerDAO DAI)?

Fiat Independence is the weakest category (1.8/5.0): because the entire protocol is architecturally defined by its USD peg -- the unit of account is borrowed from fiat, collateral is increasingly fiat-dependent (US Treasuries, USDC), and the Endgame strategy actively deepens rather than reduces fiat entanglement with $3.5B+ in planned RWA deployments.

What makes Sky USDS (formerly MakerDAO DAI) unique from an M69 perspective?

Traction is the strongest category (3.4/5.0): because Sky/MakerDAO has 8+ years of continuous operation, $12.9B TVL, 610K+ active users, 86% USDS supply growth in 2025, and deep institutional partnerships including Stripe/Privy integration -- making it one of the most battle-tested DeFi protocols in existence.

How is Sky USDS (formerly MakerDAO DAI)'s M69 Score calculated?

Sky USDS (formerly MakerDAO DAI) scores 2.9/5.0 overall. Pillar scores: Monetary Sovereignty 2.7, Civilizational Durability 3.1, Universal Adoption 3.3. Strongest: Spending Power Stability (3.5). Weakest: Fiat Independence (1.8).