They chose to go on their own, now let them be on their own. Strongly against this proposal.
1 Like
The people who are speaking negatively of this proposal do not seem to be bringing forward much substance to their criticism. I hear a lot of ācopy-catā claims that are simply non-sequitur to be frank
6 Likes
This proposal isnāt about supporting a specific copycat/fork/token/whatever you call it. Itās about splitting the profits with pools that contributed to our own yield. Itās an interesting proposal but this needs to be worked out a bit more. i see it as a sort of commission.
10 Likes
For those of you who say this will create many more forks:
YFII is specifically catered to a different market and not accepting this proposal will cut off the YFI ecosystem from an easy expansion. Everyone wins.
No other forks will be able to recreate this, so the criticism that this will cause a flood of new forks is moot and an irrelevant concern.
5 Likes
Agree completely, the people against this proposal seem to just be butthurt without bringing forward any valid criticism. This is a win-win for everyone if passed.
6 Likes
Those against this proposal arenāt thinking of the real world situation where people franchise from the main business and pays a commission community need to think straight.
In year 2020, I believe innovation and teamwork is whatās gonna bring everyone forward. If the east and the west works together we can bring everyone into crypto slight_smile:
6 Likes
once again YFI holders proof they are stupid
-
Why does YFI need to pay, when it doesnāt have to. This then leads to distortion of market / centralises incumbents: if someone releases an actually innovative product (not just a clone) they then are not competing on a level playing field. By favouring this Chinese VC/Whale backed coin youāre ending a level playing field.
-
If YFII is unable to grow/empower its community without relying on YFI, why is that the case?
-
Since when did not paying someone mean youāre making an enemy of them?
-
This whole YFII trying to capture YFI governance (see other thread) is something to be very wary of; they should not be given the benefit of the doubt
-
I disagree that YFII has given access to a whole demographic which would otherwise be excluded. China were not excluded from BTC until the creation of BCH, likewise here they are not excluded. Yes, people like Dovey Wan maybe didnāt have enough YFI as they would like to have because unlike a normal project they canāt buy a shedloadā¦ so now they want to make a copy they do have a bag ofā¦ thatās their own game to play, but Iām not sure Iād agree that theyāve widened access to a new community / demographic.
-
Is translating the YFI pages into Chinese really so hard? ! Can anyone here in the community do it, maybe we can fund a grant. Likewise for Russian etc. or they will make YFX etc ad infinitum
5 Likes
This is an open forum, anyone can participate and this isnāt necessarily representative of the YFI holders opinion.
Vote for this, feeling like different parties in a DAO, but have to do it in the right way.
For the positive side, just like Andre states, YFII represents voices from a totally different community, and could potentially diversify and help to build yearn ecosystem.
However, the YFII pattern could be easily cloned and spread like virus, stigmatizing yearn and dumping on hype chasers. Besides, we couldnāt assure what mindset that group of people are holding, just to grab money and run away, or aim to take some parts.
To synthesize, if the proposal passes, a dynamic mechanism should be designed for other communities to plug in instead of spreading wildly. The right to governance and fee claim should be proportionally shared based on contributions being made by others communities. Viable indicators include AUM brought by, proposals made by that community, .etc. Could be a dangerous but amazing move.
4 Likes
So Iām not against this in theory, but in practice, doesnāt this just result in a death spiral for YFI?
If we let any new protocol come along and earn fees derived from AUM in the YFI platform, then each protocol will just be able to mint their own new tokens and thus generate incremental additional yield for attracting people to their pools. Each new protocol will have potential to be more competitive than YFI since they can offer their new tokens, and therefore have increased AUM relative to YFI until their token incentive runs out. At which point a new protocol can come along and do the same thing.
The only way this makes sense to me is if YFI gets a fixed % of total fees, say 50% minimum, and any new project contributing to AUM gets a claim on their proportion of the other fees relative to their AUM contribution.
Edit to add:
I think this could work if itās a āsubset of the rewards generatedā by the contributed AUM. I donāt think this would work if itās all ārewards generated by the AUMā. I am not sure which is the intention of Andreās OP.
4 Likes
This is exactly what Iād like to see instead of YFI prints. Burn the mint keys in my opinion.
1 Like
Well YFI-2 is good at coordinating. Just look at how they took over this thread!
2 Likes
Yes. My wife is a native Chinese speaker, both Mandarin and Cantonese, traditional and simple and will help.
2 Likes
I dont see an issue with printing B-tokens not only for YFII platform but the legit YFI platforms too. Each should have one like Andre said as long as they bring us funds. As governors we have money coming in from aDAI and the key here to me is quickly burning the mint keys to YFI, after that worst thing all this stuff can do is take some of the rewards which im fine with, keeping in mind YFI can always vote later to stop sharing rewards too
2 Likes
They could potentially create their own yearn pool. Id much rather grow the eco system together rather than compete.
Also there is risk of not being inclusive.
If the vote doesnt pass yfii will be forced to start their own yearn pool. Yfii will most likely take the opposite approach and include future projects to share their yearn pool increasing their AUM. The network surrounding an inclusive yearn pool potentially can be massive compared to one that is closed off.
4 Likes
The idea of distributing rewards to collaborators is good in the right situation. However, I disagree that YFII is a good starting point for such outreach. Chinese, and other non-English-speaking, communities are not permanently excluded, their needs are simply not met at the moment. But that is hardly odd, since documentation even in English needs a lot of work. Collaboration rewards should be directed preferentially at communities that have a sustainable use case for YFI products, not at yield farmers who will disappear as soon as the yield dries up. In the absence of actions from YFI to prop it up, I suspect most YFII users will be gone in two months.
Even though I agree with the principle, I am afraid voting for this proposal would become carte blanche to share fees with YFII and other questionable actors. Hence: against.
9 Likes
What @Sinsecato said. The key word here is āsubsetā. Will vote YES, but we will have to have future proposals define what that subset is. 10-20% to the ecosystem should be sufficient, just enough to participate and incentivize, but still making them work hard to create their own internal value as well. We can continue to vote (monthly? quarterly?) to change the rewards or even reduce to 1% or boost. Be an engulfing whale, invite all liquidity to flow upstream to YFI via ecosystem incentive. 
Emotionally, I donāt like it. Rationally, itās about liquidity and building the ecosystem. Fundamentally, all rewards come down to total yearn product usage (not TVL alone). Fundamentally, YFI token value comes down to 1) rewards = yearn product usage 2) value of governance = debate. A regular proposal to adjust % of rewards to ecosystem spurs massive debates. And massive debates increase the value of YFI token. 
1 Like
SPOT ONā¦we should be coming up with a frame work to evaluate what a potential fork brings to the table and evaluating them on a case by case basisā¦even create a āprogramā for this in the futureā¦this definitely needs some detailed discussion on the pros and consā¦I would imagine that people might feel nervous about letting them into the actual governance processā¦so we could keep the governance separate but come up with some form of yield sharing mechanics for forks if they can maintain a certain āsizeā requirementā¦we should be open to mutually benefiting from high quality forks while ignoring the ones that dont meet our requirementsā¦
1 Like
with such a system in placeā¦no centralized system can compete with us!!
But we need to have a careful vetting processā¦because each fork we approve reflects on the YFI brandā¦there needs to be a valid vetting and monitoring process in placeā¦we should have a department in the DAO dedicated to this in the futureā¦ may be a community based monitoring?
2 Likes