A core function of the financial system is to transfer risk to the parties most willing to bear it. It should therefore be no surprise that two of the most successful products in DeFi, stablecoins and DEXs, address the key risks of using and holding cryptoassets. But these systems face uncertainties of their own. While limited counter-party risk and full transaction auditability have been rallying cries for DeFi, history reminds us that risk isn’t eliminated, but transposed. In fact, increasing complexity of products and complacency of market participants can magnify rather than reduce systemic risks.

As the potential of open financial protocols becomes clearer, some applications are gaining adoption faster than others. Maker dominates in terms of value locked and volume transacted. Compound and Uniswap trail, but are well ahead of 0x, Dharma, Augur, and dydx when it comes to liquidity. The rest have yet to show up on the radar. Looking at the three dominant protocols reveals a design advantage with respect to liquidity: none of them require users to find a specific peer to take the opposite side of a trade.

Since launching Single-Collateral Dai (SCD) in December 2017, Maker has become one of the most widely used protocols on Ethereum. A diverse ecosystem of borrowers, currency users, keepers, and speculators continues to drive rapid growth of the system. This report presents Maker as a network of heterogenous actors, examining the activity of each of its key stakeholders in an attempt to isolate the key economic drivers of the system. The focus will be on analyzing SCD’s first fourteen months of operation, while providing a few projections on the network’s future. The analysis is broken down by stakeholder group: CDP Creators, Keepers, MKR holders, and dai users.

This is not intended as an introduction to the inner workings of the Maker system. Readers unfamiliar with the Maker system should consult the MakerDAO Whitepaper and Placeholder’s Maker Investment Thesis prior to reading this report.