I wanted to share a modeling tool and make a request to the community regarding governance around emission and cap. If you do put forth a proposal that will determine the future emission and cap of the token, please take it seriously. Show us the math, create a spreadsheet detailing emission over time, explain the thinking, etc.
Here’s a google doc used for SNX modeling that I have adapted for YFI. You can copy the sheet and play with the numbers if you’d like.
Very nice. Especially by grounding with the 30k token initial supply.
This is a great place to start the conversation. Starting off with 75% yearly inflation or 433 YFI tokens minted per week, may be a lot more palatable for stakeholders compared to some of the proposals emission models in the Proposal #5 thread.
Really interested in feedback on this. Am trying to get it to a place where I propose as a solution (with a hard cap rather than continuous emission) soon.
I think this model lacks a goal. For example, it would be helpful to know based on current balances/YFI price in the system, what the implied yield would be for farmers and whether that is a reasonable incentive to offer. But overall, gut feeling is 333% inflation seems on the high side.
The goal is to demonstrate a longevity mindset and determine a continued emission which reduces in rate over time, either to a permanent emission rate or hard cap. Based on the emission schedule provided, current price, and distribution ratios, you’re free to estimate what the yield would be.
This is just a model, that you can copy and change and submit a ‘better’ version of. Please do so if you wish.
Personally, 333% over 10 years after the first week of emission feels quite reasonable. Adding a hard cap to it at 100k(?).
After a spirited debate on the discord, id like to summarize my thoughts on inflation/emission schedule:
Overall, I think a core problem I have with continuing emissions is the perception that the non-dedicated LP’s, primarily in pools 1 and 2, are receiving an inordinate amount of the total supply, with no intention of sticking around for any longer than the APR is spicy.
I feel that if we are going to continue emission, that I am not so much concerned about how long or how much the emission is, but HIGHLY concerned that it is structured in a way which rewards the most committed and engaged members of the commuinity, over longer timeframes.
I would like to see a 70/30 split of all rewards go towards those pools which are staked by governance/lockups (weighted towards governing LP), as we are the ones who take actually take on risk and work, whereas the LPs with no care/lockup get to just extract value and cut and run whenever.
Building on this, I am curious what your view is on a 80/20 YFI/yCRV pool that was proposed in the thread linked below (that most folks seem to want/agree with)? LPs from pools 1 & 2 will have already farmed and accumulated a 2/3rds of YFI by the end of week 1, and creating a pool with such a high (80%) YFI requirement, they will be incentivized to hold YFI, which also means they’ll control a lot of the voting power.
I don’t have a problem with those whales who have accumulated a large portion of the supply controlling a large portion of the voting power. Those that held took on by far the greatest risk of capital depreciation with the same information available as everyone else. Maintaining a lower burden of YFI exposure will just lower the risk to those wishing to buy votes at a later date.
EDIT: Have combined efforts with DeltaTiger and moved the models to his master sheet, which is now posted in this thread. The sheet includes 5 different models [A-E], ranging from extremely conservative emission to more aggressive emission.
To get a feel for where the community is at regarding how aggressively to inflate, please take a look at the models and vote on this poll. There is a ‘quick-sheet’ for tl;dr viewing.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
0voters
Considerations
These are all continuous emission models based on SNX // DeltaTiger template.