Hmm… I thought tech companies give top employees stock options so they can participate & reap rewards if the company does really well. Stock options help align companies’ success with employees’ reward.
Are there successful tech companies where top employees does not own any company stock?
For those top talent we can implement a yfi buyback from the market to award them…they might feel happier that they are being paid in a token that cant be minted anymore…rather if we mint new yfi to pay them…they might actually opt for $$ lol.
Statement: “Maintaining the optionality (of inflating YFI) in our arsenal is always the better option”.
My consideration:
This is only true if we can be sure to manage the possibility wisely. But maybe we are not. Just to think of an example consider fiscal policy. It is well understood that the government should provide a stimulus in a recession and have a more restrictive policy during expansions in such a way that over the whole business cycle (an upswing and the following downturn) there is, for example, no additional debt. The problem is that governments happily spend money during recessions (voters like it) but have a commitment problem during the expansion (voters do not want to pay more taxes). As a consequence, governments run more deficits than they probably should. This is the reason for the often-heard suggestion that governments should have 0 debt each year. This policy can never achieve a better outcome than any of the policies that obtain “0 debt over the business cycle”, but some people like it because it solves the commitment problem.
So, if we can rule that we will have such a commitment problem in the future, then we should keep the option of inflating. However, personally, I think there is a chance that we will succumb and start inflating without improving the protocol significantly. Not because of ill intentions, just because it happens. Obviously, nobody knows at this point.
Personally, I believe that having the commitment problem out of the way instills trust in the project and more people are willing to hold YFI long-term. And one does not have to think (or discuss) this issue any further. This should not be underestimated because it will save time…
That is a bad analogy. Printing money is not the same as issuing new shares of company stock.
Government has natural incentive to print money. Money printing inflates asset prices which makes people (voters) feel richer in the short term. It also funds fiscal spending and stimulus checks, which keeps voters happy and the government get to keep their seats.
On the other hand, company shareholders are very wary about issuance of new stocks that may dilute the USD value of the stocks they hold. Shareholders are therefore incentivized to vote against stock dilution, unless there is a clear and compelling value creation to do so
The commitment problem is still there. Suppose there are 10 a priori valuable projects and we should vote in 3. Will we truly do so? Maybe we will just vote 8 in because because inflation is easy and in the end those projects might be successful (when there will be clearly a decreasing productivity). Needing to pay the funds from the treasury will force you to concentrate on the best projects. As I said, I fully agree and know that it might not be optimal, but it is never truly bad. YFI will not go belly up by having to concentrate on the best proposals, but it might because we pay for too much bad stuff through inflation. We should just acknowledge that as you group we may make bad voting decisions. And we may want to protect ourselves against that. It is not true that we make voting decisions being able to fully foresee the future, being able to calculate expected values perfectly, etc. The argument that we vote in only proposals with a positive expected value is rational and nice, but nobody will be able to calculate everything related perfectly.
Imagine if Bitcoin Core Developers said they were going to change the code to allow more than 21 MIllion Bitcoin.
gg no re.
Monero in nutshell
For the last 10 years, the world’s supply of above-ground gold has been inflating by 1.7%/year (source).
When the Monero tail emission begins in mid-2022, the annualized inflation rate of XMR will be 0.9%.
Since Monero’s tail emission is linear, the annualized inflation rate will forever decrease towards zero, starting from the initial 0.9% rate.
If you think of gold as a good store of value, consider that gold inflates at the double the rate of mid-2022 XMR, and gold will look progressively worse relative to Monero as time goes on to XMR’s linear emission growth, i.e. asymptotically zero annual inflation.
I know it is tough for Bitcoin folks to get their heads past the binary position that inflation is either zero or infinite, but this position is not supported by math. The macroeconomics of linear nominal inflation is an entirely different situation than little exponential inflation.
Also, consider what we in Monero are getting in exchange for this. We know that miners in the future will get paid. We do not need to set aside a group within the ecosystem to pay the bill for future miners. This is not a trivial decision; in fact, disagreement over this point was a driving factor in the divorce of BTC/BCH.
Hope it make sense.
A YFI BTC ETH XMR mulitcoin early adopter holder and Venture Cap.
I’m all for burning those keys to the ground! Look at the hundreds of coins in the market, one day they are up, and the next day they are completely worthless. To be in a position that stands out and is seen as reputable will only increase the reputation overtime. I think to be a holder of YFI even a fraction of it, should be seen as impressive, like a holder of some rare gemstone sourced from another planet. If we mint more then it will be seen as second guessing our decisions and wont be a rare gem.
I think by burning those keys, the aim should be to make Bitcoin yesterday’s news and focusing on evolving YFI into the most attractive and sort after product for investors and holders that stake their tokens or fraction of it in the governance contract.
After 110 messages should a formal vote be opened ?
When On-chain governance finalize and deploye
Bold Game Changer
yes…lets put this to vote…I need to claim my governance rewards 
The whole reason I got in to YFI in the first place, It looks like im a bit late for the voting tho… im new but wanna participate more.
Yearn should be like the Platinum card of De-Fi. This is why we should make YFI as exclusive as possible.
I don’t think exclusive is the right term. DeFi and YFI is open to everyone who wants to participate.
@banteg / @andre.cronje I guess the vote is closed now… what happens next?
I strongly agree with this proposal
@athio92 once the new on-chain governance is finalized and deployed this will be enacted, per the description in Andre’s original post.
It seems I am the only one who is uneasy about burning the minting capability without instituting any additional minting called for by YIP 0, which passed. I am not an inflationist, and in fact voted against YIP 0. But I lost. It seems we should be true to our principles and show some integrity. We should not let governance votes be meaningless.
I recommed we implement YIP 0 by minting a real but not hugely significant amount of YFI (maybe 100, maybe more or less) and put it in the treasury for the time being. Then burn the minting capability.
For what it’s worth, while the voices in this thread have been largely “for” burning, the signaling poll only had ~1200 YFI voting in it– so it will be interesting to see how the actual vote plays out.
I also think that many who had originally voiced support for burning, or who at least weren’t against it (such as myself or @tracheopteryx) now feel that burning the minting ability might not be in Yearn’s best interest at this point.
