After reading through the complete discussion, the general notion seems to be:
- simple fee structure (preferably only 1 fee)
- mostly in favor of performance fee because no risk for the principal
- keep the fee low to sustain and grow the user base
For the most part I agree. There is no need for complicated fee structures and a performance fee appears to be the fairest. I haven´t met anyone yet who would not be ready to pay a small fee for a useful and wildly profitable service.
When it comes to the fee amount, it really depends on what we use it for. If it´s just a dividend for the YFI holders, this makes no sense at this stage (growth is king!) and it would seriously harm yearn.
But if we want to undertake projects that need strong funding, the money needs to come from somewhere. Recently I read about the auditing yAcademy which is a brilliant idea and let´s also not forget about the native insurance proposal (Proposal: Direct % of rewards towards socialized insurance fund). These things need serious funding but they also add tremendous long term value to the protocoll. Therefore, I suggest a performance fee in the range of 10-20% which should be lowered when funding progresses to a certain point. Yes it appears high but it´s used for creating enduser value, so that´s key.
Although yearn is in a good starting position, we are far from having won the game. The race just started and we need to move fast. Funding lets us move faster.