Yes, I’ve been following the discussion. Given the strength of opinion on this forum, it is surprising that the signaling received relatively little interest.
One can be for burning , ok with burning, or against burning and still think it is important to stand behind proposals that have passed. Do any of the strong “for burning immediately” proponents really think that turnimg our back on a governance vote outcome is in the interest of the protocol? Following through with a governance vote outcome sends a message that we respect governance and that every vote (and voting) matters.
We are also still awaiting response about Delphi and if they were engaged (which if I remember correctly, came out of the YIP 0 discussion). I’ll support whatever the community lands on but reversing on YIP 0 feels crappy when it was passed imo.
I am not sure if this vote is already done but I am still registering my disagreement… I am a holder of YFI but I believe we should not eliminate flexibility given that DeFi is evolving raidly and we are still figuring out what approaches work best; the DeFi community is proving that driving value through scarcity is not the best approach; and I think most people are simply motivated by protecting the value of their own YFI tokens and not by what is best for the protocol.
We should not lose the momentum behind this key proposal. It would put a permanent floor on price since the yYFI vault is market buying YFI and there is a very low fixed supply.
Community “flag” double standards censorship and keep track of record of previous reports needs to also improve if you want to attract talents and financials or staying with people only think with the majority ideologies (thinking inside the box or outside).
I am not contrarian.
Just a pseudo free cypherpunk thinker.
The minting burn or not is essential, for me,
yfi with eth is very affordable at discount in this level .
It can be easily accumulate with icebergs orders on chain.
