We, Yearn’s internal security team, have requested yCHAD to rescind the GOLD/st-yETH gauge, effectively deactivating it for the following reasons:
Underlying token concerns: The token lacks clear tokenomics, and its supply is heavily concentrated among a few addresses across Mainnet, Arbitrum, and Base, making it highly susceptible to rugging.
Concentration of ownership: Over 99% of the gauge supply is controlled by a single entity. Etherscan link
Minimal value to the ecosystem: The gauge provides little to no meaningful benefit to Yearn or its token.
Harmful to system integrity: With global dYFI emissions set to increase soon, extractive gauges like this one are harmful to the system and contradict the intent of the gauge emissions framework.
Next steps
To make Yearn’s gauge system more robust, the internal security team, along with possibly external risk teams, will set up a due diligence process for new gauges, similar to what Curve and Aerodrome do. This will include writing clear guidelines on what’s needed to list a yGauge and what can disqualify one. Once it’s ready, we’ll share it here, and if accepted, it will set the standard for adding new yGauges moving forward.
We, Yearn’s internal security team, have requested yCHAD to rescind the [GOLD/st-yETH gauge], effectively deactivating it for the following reasons:
The Yearn ecosystem is controlled by veYFI token holders who submit and vote on off-chain proposals that govern the ecosystem.
To deactivate/kill a gauge, due process should be conducted through a YIP and only veYFI holders have that decision-making power.
Asking yCHAD(or other yteam) to act without a passed YIP is an infringement of their mandate and will have legal consequences upon them.
The author of this initiative ‘tapir’ is well known to the GOLD team, as he and another member of yearn security team were hired by GOLD team and paid in GOLD token to conduct an audit on the [GOLD/st-yETH ] vault ! So it is surprising to hear that GOLD is now unfit for its voted Gauge.
Now to address his concerns:
Underlying token concerns: The token lacks clear tokenomics, and its supply is heavily concentrated among a few addresses across Mainnet, Arbitrum, and Base, making it highly susceptible to rugging.
GOLD is a 500 days old multi-chain token, is backed by a known whale and the Founder bought much more than sold, and have no intention to rug.
Concentration of ownership: Over 99% of the gauge supply is controlled by a single entity.
Most supply on ETH is in liquidity pool, is dynamic as fully open to buyers. I expect liquidity to be distributed to new investors once emissions starts increasing.
GOLD was created on BASE, where majority of token resides:
35.82% is Bridged (stargate) to Ethereum & Arbitrum chains
29.77% is in Timelock
27.4% is Burned
6.12% is in Multisig
Minimal value to the ecosystem: The gauge provides little to no meaningful benefit to Yearn or its token.
The gauge pays 10% performance fee to the Yearn ecosystem like most Gauges
Harmful to system integrity: With global dYFI emissions set to increase soon, extractive gauges like this one are harmful to the system and contradict the intent of the gauge emissions framework.
GOLD have ample liquidity and it is up to veYFI holders to determine allocation of emissions.
As a large holder of veYFI ,being fully committed to YFI ecosystem and its success, I am willing to diminish my vote proportion on the GOLD gauge, in order to promote diversity!
Guardian power can only act upon proposals/governance decision subsequent to its passing date. yChad role was not enacted to prior governance decisions!
Couple of large veYFI holders direct all of their votes toward it, overwhelming everybody else.
Token never appears on the veYFI gauge list.
dYFI rewards go to large veYFI token holders.
Token gets delisted.
What should I, as a small veYFI holder, think of this?
Comes across as a hostage situation. Whatever it is, it’s not healthy for Yearn.
There absolutely needs to be some sort of due-diligence process before a token gets whitelisted so that this doesn’t happen again.
EDIT: Threatening legal consequences for deactivating the gauge seems to me to be a very bad idea on the part of those large veYFI holders. Not just because it would hurt Yearn and financially damage all of the smaller veYFI holders like me, but also because it could potentially expose those large veYFI holders to legal consequences for possible self-dealing (breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, etc.). This needs to be handled in the best interests of Yearn and lawsuits are antithetical to that.
A proper due-diligence process needs to be put into place, then the token should be reconsidered for whitelisting. Anything else looks highly suspect.