Airdrop 1000:1 Coin-Split To All Existing YFI Holders, While Increasing Supply to 30m

**Airdrop 1000:1 Coin-Split To All Existing YFI Holders, While Increasing Supply to 30m **:

A 1000:1 token split would consist of airdropping all existing holders simultaneously 1000 times their current holdings of YFI, while simultaneously increasing YFI’s maximum and circulating supply by an equal factor of 1000 This has been previously proposed, on two occassions but could be worth revisiting to help take YFI to the next level.

  • No one gets diluted because supply increases proportionally to holdings post-airdrop, just lowers the [psychological] barrier for entry to new market entrants. :grinning:


Provide 30 days of notice until 2020-10-21T21:00:00Z so that there can be enough media awareness, coverage and preparations made such as ensuring major block explorers and reporting sites such as CoinMarketCap, GoinGecko, Etherscan, and others, update the supply/price post-airdrop, including ensuring there are no security risks or other technical challenges implementing this proposal, with the goal to increase the maximum supply by a factor of 1000, from 30,000 to 30,000,000 while airdropping those extra tokens proportionally to all existing YFI holders.

  • For example, a user “Alice” pre-airdrop holds 0.10 YFI worth $3000 at a hypothetical rate of YFI/USD $30,000 pre-airdrop would subsequently own 100 full YFI post-airdrop valued at YFI/USD $30 each, assuming all else equal. In other words, the 100 full YFI that Alice holds post-airdrop would still equate to a value of $3,000, using the above example hypothetical market price.


People not familiar with YFI can be initially turned-off due to the price for each unit, as they don’t initially grasp that the supply is barely 30,000.

  • While this limitation of the current supply is a strength (which I like), it could be holding back potential network effects people not familiar with the project, as new users could think the token is already expensive, or a scam, or not likely to go higher, creating a missed opportunity.

A 1000:1 coin split, and proportional 1000x increase of the maximum/circulating supply from its current values, simply moves the decimal place, sort to speak, as no one gets diluted, provided that both the 1000x airdrop and 1000x supply adjustment can happen successfully and simultaneously, to all existing holders of record (i.e. ethereum addresses that contain YFI) as of the snapshot moment when the adjustment occurs, provided it is technically feasible.

  • While a similar proposal mentioned above did not pass, this topic appears to be resurfacing and something I thought about before even seeing those other threads. 1000x is an deal number. Spolier below for those dreaming of YFI trading at $1m per token.

$30bln market cap example: Given the current prices of YFI, it would be far easier (psychologically) for a user to buy 1 YFI for $30 knowing there is a 30m supply than buying 0.001 of 1 YFI when there is only 30,000 circulating. While I like the idea of the supply being limited to just 30,000 and like to imagine the token going to $1m (a market cap of $30b), many others might not, yet with a 1000x supply increase and 1000:1 proportional airdrop to all users as proposed here, it would still enable that vision to materialize, but would simply require that post-airdrop YFI moves from $30 up to $1000 which would achieve the same market cap of $30b post-airdrop (i.e., $1k30m = $30b == $1m30,000 = $30b ). :rocket:


This YIP to Increase Supply by 1000x while airdropping 1000:1 new tokens to all existing YFI holders.





I’m against. I agree that many people do seem to be put off by higher unit prices but if you don’t understand market cap then you shouldn’t be buying YFI. YFI has a lot of risks and I don’t believe someone could understand those risks and not understand that the price alone is irrelevant. Hopefully YFI can be used to teach people that market cap is more important than the price when looking to make an investment.


I’m Against this. It simply doesn’t make sense right now as the token isn’t struggling to gain any adoption. It became a $1B project in 2 months. Anyone not familiar with the tokens max supply should not be participating in governance or speculation. If anything, its high price is a novelty and makes it more of a speculative purchase as supply is scarce.


Low supply and high price of YFI is massive marketing benefit and consistent with high quality of the Yearn brand.


These are all good points, thanks. I think to exclude speculators based of their lack of understanding (even though they may be very capable of understanding, just perhaps time-constrained) seems to exclude a wider potential audience. While this proposal is not just for speculators, I am sure there are plenty of speculators already in the project, and that doesn’t mean they don’t want to HODL. Also, a user could be a speculator (trading YFI), while another portion of their portfolio HODLing longer-term, but have no interest in governance, and that should be their right, unless there is a future proposal to penalize them, beyond the current requirement to vote to redeem rewards from staked tokens, which I think is sufficient. Also, I didn’t imply it struggled to get to current cap, but rather the potential future struggle to move to higher market caps. It can’t be on novelty alone, and clearly there is huge value in the governance system as YFI appears to be the most efficient DAO out there. I just think its about the missed opportunity of new users that are less savvy and the psychological barrier, maybe I am wrong and YFI will do fine regardless, I hope so.

Fair points although it could be an expensive lesson for those that miss out, because think of the millions of people that buy stocks each day and have zero clue what the market cap/supply is for those securities.
The recent stock splits by TSLA and AAPL reinforce that. Not saying this proposal should be motivated by a higher market cap, but simply make it easier to be achieved. Anyway, I appreciate all the feedback thus far.

YFI is a governance token. Speculators who don’t do their research don’t normally contribute to governance. But would drive out people who actually want to contribute.

Ideally, marketcap should be determined by fundamentals, not by speculators who don’t do their due diligence. Token splitting does not change how yearn protocols work but burdens the governance.

I do not think this adds value to YFI as a governance token, and am against this proposal.


I’m against any coin splits, it sounded cool as a novelty, but it doesn’t really add any true value. It potentially could lure in less sophisticated buyers thinking they are buying something because it be low in $ amount. Doesn’t really benefit them or current holders long-term IMO, except potentially a XRP style scam pump, which shouldn’t be our focus.


I think a move like this can really only be justified if we want to entice speculators, specifically those with smaller amounts of capital who are newer to the field.

Realistically, Yearn wants those who see value in the protocol to be the ones governing it (yield farmers, DeFi natives, developers, etc). I don’t think that splitting the token is going to bring in anyone to govern who wouldn’t be motivated by the fundamentals of the protocol itself.

We want to attract the best in the DeFi space to create products that deliver the highest risk-adjusted yield– and honestly, I think splitting the token will take us further away from that goal instead of keeping us aligned with it.


I am strongly in favor of lowering the price. We should not be seen as an exclusive High Priced Club that serves only the “wealthy” or financially or cryptocurrency savvy folks. The overriding motivation for the genesis of this project is SERVICE.

At the beginning, Andrea Cronje was crunching the numbers “manually” so to speak, before he figured out a way to automate things- to make things easier for himself and then for all of us who have gratefully joined this wonderful project. He did not keep this to himself and a few others but laid it all out there for all to come in and contribute, assist in the innovation and in the process benefit.

Yes, the turnoff factor and the psychological barrier is real.

We should lower the price of the Yearn, bring in, serve or reach more people across the globe. This is how Microsoft, Amazon, Tesler, Apple, Google and Youtube to name but a few became global household names . Serving the masses and thus creating so much value and wealth not only for themselves but for many across the globe.

Ya agreed. I’m against this as well. Holding YFI should come with a certain sense of responsibility that a typical crypto investor might not be interested in. High token price is a great way to force people to ‘work’ to understand the value proposition. I too voted for denominating YFI in one of the earlier threads but has since changed my views after hearing other points of view about the downsides of denominating.

1 Like

Each of those companies were household names long before they had stock splits that lowered the price of a share of stock.

Your right this has been a topic twice and I don’t see anything new you’re adding. You’re just saying price is too high. The community has already said it did not want to do a split.


In fact community wants to burn the ability to ever mint another single token.


This is a very good proposal, however, the timing is a little too early.


  • affordable
  • with CoinBase, along with other exchanges, we will see a spike in price if this is done, as seen with Tesla and Apple


  • Tesla and Apple have both worked for years and decided to do a stock split to make it more affordable, YFI has only been in existance for less than two (2) months. Although it has gained the most traction in Crypto (our little 50k DeFi users world) it has yet to gain traction in the real world (yet to come) and it will surely come.

You’ll have better luck revisiting this topic once each YFI value has passed six (6) digits. Until then, no one is going to vote for this proposal.

  • I too am ** AGAINST** this proposal as well -

I’m against coin splits because it’s a gimmick. Why not just adopt re-basing while we’re at it?

1 Like