Deep Dive
1. Rebrand to USDS (October 2024)
Overview: MakerDAO rebranded as Sky Protocol, upgrading Dai (DAI) to USDS—a functionally identical stablecoin with new yield and governance features.
The upgrade allows users to swap DAI for USDS at a 1:1 ratio via a converter contract, ensuring backward compatibility. USDS integrates with Sky’s Savings Rate (currently 4.5% as of July 2025) and rewards programs. Legacy DAI remains usable but lacks access to new features.
What this means: This is neutral for DAI because it preserves core utility while incentivizing adoption of USDS. Users gain yield opportunities but face minor friction in upgrading. (Source)
2. Governance Token Migration (September 2025)
Overview: Sky Protocol enforces a September 18, 2025, deadline for MKR holders to convert tokens to SKY (1 MKR = 24,000 SKY) to retain governance rights.
Late conversions incur penalties, and SKY becomes the exclusive governance token post-deadline. The migration aims to streamline decision-making and reduce legacy token complexity.
What this means: This is bullish for DAI/USDS because centralized governance risks decline with broader SKY participation. However, delayed conversions could temporarily fragment voting power. (Source)
3. Protocol Stability Rating (August 2025)
Overview: S&P Global rated Sky Protocol (DAI/USDS issuer) B- in August 2025, citing stable revenues but risks like governance centralization and regulatory uncertainty.
The rating applies to DAI and USDS, marking the first major agency evaluation of a DeFi stablecoin. It highlights Sky’s $5.37B market cap and $22.36B daily volume as strengths.
What this means: This is neutral for DAI because institutional recognition boosts credibility, but the speculative grade reflects lingering risks. (Source)
Conclusion
Dai’s transition to USDS and SKY governance underscores a push for mainstream relevance amid evolving DeFi standards. While upgrades enhance functionality, migration deadlines and regulatory scrutiny remain critical variables. How will Sky Protocol balance decentralization with S&P’s emphasis on “governance centralization” risks?