I’m curious about this as well? Anyone know what’s going with the Delphi report? @banteg @milkyklim @Substreight
1 Like
I want to walk my previous comment back a little.
I do think we should burn the keys, but after some reflection I can’t say that I know the best time to do that.
Thank you to all the thoughtful posts here. I’m learning from your counterarguments.
7 Likes
It seems like most existing YFI holders have a strong incentive to vote for this proposal simply because they know this will undoubtedly push the price higher esp6 in the short term. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that but I think it has a strong impact on people’s judgment…Were all human after all.
Personally I think there is no need to get rid of this flexibility. Companies don’t place a hard irreversible limit on the amount of equity they can issue. It’s just another tool in the toolbox. Being able to mint more may come in handy.
🤷
6 Likes
I vote for.We need study Berkshire Hathawa and trust Andre.
Like a lot of people here, I think my first response was “of course!” but now I’m much more on the side of “definitely don’t mint more now, but keep the option open.”
Maybe instead we could make some sort of compromise and vote to not mint for a certain amount of time? Perhaps six months? Again, I have no desire to mint– but this token didn’t exist two months ago, so I think keeping our options open as things rapidly change in this space would be the best bet.
4 Likes
I deleted my “for” comment and have changed sentiment because I think we should cool our jets as some others have mentioned.
Not even 3 months old. If we’re bullish long term on our value prop, our capacity for innovation, not to mention the reach DeFi will have globally, we may want to reconsider.
Against, but more so a ‘lets revisit this at a later date’
7 Likes
Not when your coin is divisible up to 18 decimals.
NEXT
6 Likes
I am FOR
Burn iiiit!
2 Likes
Yes. Burn it permanently.
If I’m owning YFI merely to cash out at high price in short term, I will definitely vote YES. Token scarcity = numba go up = I can sell, cash out, and say goodbye.
If I’m holding YFI as part of business owner, I do not agree we burn away token minting capability permanently.
We need to ensure Yearn has proper mechanism to fundraise and expand in the next 5 years. The most feasible way to fundraise is by issuing new tokens, just like how corporations issue new shares. This process is subject to governance, in which existing shareholders (YFI holders) would only vote for new token issuance IF the benefit of fundraising clearly supports growth of YFI.
In essence:
- I will vote NO because I prefer YFI to have flexibility to fundraise in long term
- If the majority votes YES for short-term price pump, then I probably will try to sell at top
5 Likes
GAAD DAMN this is an amazing proposal
Before I start, let me clarify, $YFI price going up is in my best interest. That being said:
- What is the immediate urgency to cap the supply?
- If the answer to (1) is only number go up, it is short sighted.
- It may become a handicap as there will be no new YFI to incentivize newcomers. Major reason why $YFI community is so strong is because it made a lot of people rich beyond their wildest dreams. It gave people a chance who lost the trains of Bitcoin and Ethereum. To expand the community or business lines in the future even further you will not only need current talent but a lot of other talent outside dev. and they need to feel as a part of bigger YFI family.
- If newcomers like the idea, but not the monetary policy, a YFI fork can provide better tail emission for newcomers to engage and $YFI will face a formidable competitor. I think it is possible to avoid that situation.
- I know we can finance newcomers via treasury - but there are three issues with that:
a) Unlike how people received $YFI tokens, newcomers will be at the mercy of governance process (unreliable incentives & unnecessary time wastage of community)
b) It is one thing to receive token and other thing to receive fiat.
c) Treasury might not even have that much money.
So, while I understand the scarcity argument for capping the supply, I do not quite comprehend the urgency of the situation. If it is only number go up, then patience is what we need and not short term thinking.
Best!
VK
7 Likes
I do not support this view for the time being. But always open to understanding. I will have to learn about Nash Equilibrium.
I understand that some amount of debt or cash-to-spend is always beneficial. Who is going to pay? Fee’s and the governance fund, duh. We could even get a loan if needed. I bet community would even be up for donational if we were in a severe pinch. But printing new money… yeah thats not a loan or debt. That is expansionary policy, taking away from all owners. Let’s give owners the optionality vs making them scared they are not guaranteed that optionality.
I do have concerns that burning the keys will permanently close other doors unrelated to new issuance. In the first year of a startup, there could be a million small contract changes we would want. Do you know if ONLY the ability to block minting is supported? Does it block all other upgrade abilities?
Important question @rewkang , @andre.cronje , or others:
Will this block us from making other changes to the smart contracts or any other aspects… or does it only / solely block minting?
I think it would be optimal to use treasury funds for expansionary investments or marketing-type growth. Organizations should wisely spend based on what they bring-in. If we are doing gangbusters on revenue, we have more to spend on marketing. If we are not doing so well, we maybe shouldn’t be expanding our token-base to fund new efforts. I understand that some amount of debt is good, but a token mint isn’t debt. We can have healthy debt via the treasury funds and lending.
1 Like
I second this opinion.
Even if we did not burn the minting capability, it does not mean it is easy to mint new tokens.
I believe existing shareholders will reject any proposal to mint new tokens that does not make sense anyway - but will approve minting new tokens if the benefit clearly outweighs the dilution effect on existing shareholders.
1 Like
it’s simply too early in this experiment (yes, keep in mind that at the foundation, this is all still an experiment) to get rid of that optionality.
I think too many people are blindly voting yes simply because Andre is behind the proposal, and that it’s just easier to stan. But I haven’t exactly seen or read a good enough argument or pitch as to why it should be done. I understand there are pros to it, but I don’t think the downsides have been explored enough.
Maintaining the optionality in our arsenal is always the better option.
Andre, at the end of the Unchained Podcast, when asked where we can we learn more about him, he said don’t. Don’t focus effort on learning more about him personally, because he is aware that he is impermanent, but rather, we should focus on something permanent like YFI. I certainly do hope that it’s the case that YFI will be a permanent thing, and if we want to maintain adaptability in the future, keeping this optionality open is better than not having it at all.
3 Likes
I actually think this move is very risky in terms of governance design / incentive design.
The YFI “moat” at this stage is community, branding, amount of capital, team (probably missing some).
But this moat will not last forever. The most defensible long term moat is proper incentive design…and you can ONLY do this with the ability to adjust the network’s monetary policy! In the long run, this flexibility will be necessary. I guess we can always migrate to another token if it really becomes important… either way, it’s necessary for proper incentive design.
Imagine if the USA was not able to print USD. Or any economy for that matter.
1 Like
I think that this sums it all.
1 Like
I don’t see any future scenario were governance will want to dilute YFI.
Raising capital via inflation causes not just dilution but is also bad for price since it will be dumped for salaries and yields.
Attracting new talent? They’ll want to get paid in $$ not a volatile token that could drop 20% before rent day. Yield farming? I don’t want YFI to become a coin that gets farmed and sold everyday like CRV or COMP.
Increasing the treasury should cover any project up to several hundred thousand $$.
Raising capital for payouts and expansion should be done via positive cash flow instead of selling new YFI and getting dumped on.
4 Likes
Great point. We can always attract new talent with $$. YFI should be in the hands of long term holders. If we need more YFI to give to future longterm holders we can always implement a buyback mechanism.
Only projects that can’t produce any revenue sell their tokens to raise cash.
2 Likes