Madricas "the sale of detokenization"
Holders of RealToken X have approved its detokenization, now all deposited RealToken X must be removed from the RMM to be burned. The DAO must not have the ability to intervene in that process. What happens to the detokenization if the vote is rejected?
It is simply not possible from a legal, accounting point of view to have tokens still active on the blockchain at the end of the detokenization process.
First of all, it is the responsibility of the token holders to remove their token from the RMM to allow these actions to be carried out, however, as we see with RMMv2, while the buyer rate is > 30%, there are deposits that have been inactive for months.
This creates an impossible compliance situation for RealT, which must be accountable to the authorities and respect their requests.
So in any case, this update of the contracts will be carried out, if the proposal is accepted then the DAO will have control of the functions, otherwise it is RealT, it is mandatory to be able to put assets such as loans, and for all the cases mentioned.
Madricas "to be able to put the LOAN tokens on the RMM"
Similarly, at the maturity of the loan, LOAN tokens must be removed from the RMM to be burned. Why should the DAO need to be consulted if the only possible outcome is the burn of these tokens? Again, what happens to the wind down of the loan if the vote is rejected?
just like the previous case with the addition of the case of partial repayment of the loan, this implies having to burn a proportional part of the tokens at the time of payment
Madricas "resolve cases like the death of the owner of the tokens, the loss of control of the address of the owner of the address"
As already highlighted before me, there can be a sense of urgency, in the case of an hack for example, that would introduce additional processes to circumvent the slow DAO processes. For non-urgent cases, there remains a need to recover the tokens, and in some instances, there may even be a legal obligation to do so. Yet, by asking the DAO to cast a vote on this matter, a NO result becomes a possibility.
So, in which situations would the DAO vote on a recovery be legitimate?
Address hacking does not use its features, it is the freezing of the address that will be the most effective, moreover most often when the users realize the hacking, it is already too late to be able to act.
The role of the DAO in these cases is not to say whether it agrees or not with the detokenization, the LOAN bunr process, the recovery in the event of loss of access to the address or in the context of successes, it is the responsibility of RealT, however the DAO is responsible for the proper functioning of the RMM and other applications of the ecosystem, and therefore what is executed on its contract even if it cannot refuse to do so, it must ensure that what is executed is consistent with what should be executed.
The purpose of giving control of these functions to the DAO is to be able to guarantee the proper functioning of the RMM, that there will be no end, to give more transparency on this delicate process, this will also give more confidence because imagine a malicious employee who has access to this functionality, he could withdraw user funds from the RMM (even if it is limited in terms of possibility), he could still withdraw to put an address close to liquidation. So it could execute this function at any time, whereas if it goes through a vote of the DAO, the holder of the DAO could say, no there is no announcement of detokenization, or the tokens impacted in the request are not the right ones, for the death or loss of access I admit it is a little more complicated, because there is no announcement, but we can imagine finding verifiable information onChain like the creation of the address, the WL which would have just been carried out by RealT, etc...
For hacks the solution is the Realtoken Wallet, as there is no more seed, this removes many problematic cases of hack, and if unfortunately the control of the address is lost, then there are still the recovery functions which allow to remove the control to a social login to give it to a new one.
In any case the security of the Wallets should be a priority of the users with a significant crypto heritage. Having a hardware wallet or better a gnosis safe should be a priority above all that for a few months it is possible to have a safe directly in Rabby as if it were a classic address
