@jhack, thanks for pointing this out! Your question made me dig a bit deeper trying to understand what was going on here.
As you correctly point out, a v1 vault is having a 20% perf fee set, while the docs say it should be 5%.
What happened? The short answer is that v2 vaults took longer than expected to roll out, and in the meanwhile we updated fee structures on v1 vaults in accordance with YIP-52, but failed to reflect this in the docs.
YIP-51 set a 2% mgmt fee and 20% performance fee for v2 vaults specifically.
YIP-52 set a new performance fee structure in general, where 10% would go to the Strategist and 10% would go to the Treasury. YIP-52 builds on YIP-51, but is not referring to v2 vaults specifically.
At the time of writing, v2 was “weeks away” and as a co-author of both YIPs, I naively thought v2 would be rolled out much faster, and that all v1 vaults would transition to the v2 vaults immediately.
In reality, this transition is taking much longer, and is more gradual. We’re now expecting this to play out over the coming months.
In the meanwhile, new v1 vaults were rolled out, for additional CRV gauges. The strategists responsible have followed YIP-52, which has the perf fee set to 20%. Older vaults were also updated to the new fee structure. This however has not been accurately reflected in our documentaiton, it was missed completely. The docs still make the distinction between v1 and v2 vaults.
I propose we take two immediate actions:
- Update docs to capture the above accurately.
- Display the fee structure for each vault on the website, to avoid any confusion.
I welcome other ideas and thoughts as well. Once again, thank you for flagging this, was in our blindspot and I’m not sure we would have noticed it had it not been for your post!