The original intention of YFI was to govern the protocol and let builders/coders create awesome products collaboratively and with the focus on DeFi composability. It made sense to distribute it in yield-farming fashion because at its core Yearn is yield-farming protocol.
Two months into the project we’ve been able to see a better picture of who the holders are, and their long-term visions. The amount smart, methodical, creative, and innovative people building Yearn and participating in the governance ecosystem is mind-blowing. We don’t need to issue more YFI to lure yield-farmers or speculators in. The cream of the crop in DeFi is already managing governance so that builders can innovate and change the world. Why shake up the current governance mix?
YFI will be a model of governance for all of crypto and IMO it already is. I am against any further minting.
Analogously, companies issue and buy back shares all the time. It’s a financial tool that we don’t want to give up so early.
We can still do the same thing by buying shares with earnings and burning them, or keeping them in Treasury, which is what companies do during stock buybacks.
+1 for no more $YFI minting. The protocol can evolve without the need for further dilution IMO. There’s a sweet spot in terms of parties actively involved with any project, the tradeoff being between aggregate work capacity and team skills composition vs. communication and coordination costs implied by larger groups.
From a protocol integrity standpoint, we should mint at least some more YFI. YIP 0, which was proposed by Andre, passed. That YIP called for inflation. I voted against YIP 0 at the time, the vote was close, but I lost. Rejecting that vote sets a bad precedent and suggests that votes do not have consequences. To give meaning to YIP 0 and the voting process in general, we should mint some additional YFI. It can be 1 YFI, 1000 YFI, or something else. The point is there was a vote and it should be respected and implemented. I would then suggest we put all the minted YFI in the treasury for whatever future uses we vote for and then immediately burn the minting capability.
This is such an interesting move. A permanently fixed supply, for a token with real demand, without an option for future minting. Has anyone seen anything like this before? Any other projects we can reference as a guide for how this might play out?
Is it possible to see the smart contracts for the on-chain governance already? I made the first Subgraphs for Yearn Finance and would like to build out support for the on-chain governance so it’s ready to go when it launches!
This proposal seems like an overreaction to people asking to recover their coins sent to contract addresses. I’m both against going the mint-to-recover rabbit hole and against burning the keys. It was not a pressing issue and it limits the flexibility of the protocol in case we find a good inflation model in the future.
While, as a YFI holder, I would like to see capped supply, I agree that it seems far too early to cut off our options, especially if we’re looking towards the next few years.
While I’m sure that we could find some other way to fundraise, this seems like removing a Chesterton’s Fence.