Indemnify andre and developers re EMN

Propose that we use treasury to indemnify andre and developers if any EMN suit arises. Pretty sad some people are wanting to take action rather than accountability for their own actions


Yes I support this 100%. Something like this should be part of our future constitution…the protocol should protect it’s developers.


Should we first clarify if EMN is linked to YFI somehow ? It has been said and repeated on CT that there was no link - in that case why use YFI’s treasury ?


I’ve heard mixed information on the accuracy of there even being a lawsuit over this, but it would be nice to have insurance equally for the developers and users of this project for any reasonable issue that may arise, including what happened with EMN or otherwise.

1 Like

Good point. I think issue is not whether emn linked to yfi but issue is should yfi treasury be used to defend actions brought against andre and developers on yfi. I would argue yes in this instance and likely in most instances. Benefits flow to yfi ecosystem if andre developers are not disincentivised by legal risk to work on protocol but might need to consider on case by case basis. Id argue for a general cover because risk not removed if considered case by case


Support this fully. Mistakes happen and a code of conduct should be in place as the vote is almost passing.

You mentioned that

Benefits flow to yfi ecosystem

and I think that is where the yearn community needs some information. In case this is true (for example any fees from say in-game purchases flowing to the YFI treasury) that would make sense for the community to take full/part responsibility for what happened (even if I personally think people fomo’ed into unaudited / untested / non-official smart contracts so any legal action would most likely just fail…)

But in case eminencefi is a separate project I wouldn’t see why YFI holders would be liable for anything.

Basically you

  1. both get the benefits and bear the liabilities

  2. or you don’t

1 Like

Andre is constantly deving stuff that either directly or indirectly benifits yearn…it is very important for him and other yearn devs to know that they can work freely and experiment. This is KEY to attracting future dev talent for the yEcosystem. This is not the time to be splitting hairs. To be honest, since so many things are build and tested on the fly in defi…many of the details about fees and such might not have even been worked out and might have been left for a future governance vote in the future…who knows…

We and the market know that yearn is where it is today because of the early experiments of andre…any attack on andre or any of the core devs is an attack on yearn and I think we should step up and send a strong message that IT IS NOT OK.

Think this vote is important to show yearn’s solidarity behind its devs.


As long as we decide these things on a case by case basis I´m in.
In the case of the EMN hack, it´s very obviols that we should defend Andre against the potential inconveniences that arise from the recklessness of degens.

However, it must be insured that devs work responsibly in the future as well. So I wouldn´t hand out a free bail out ticket to everyone just because they develop yearn. Let´s keep it case by case.

YES for this case.

Yes! For future instances lets come up with clear guidelines/protocols for developers to follow so that there is a clear framework for what is covered and what is not. Our dev team is probably the best ones to provide input into how to setup those protocols that provide common sense safe guards for the future. This could form an important part of our future constitution.

But in this particular instance. Its pretty obvious that this an intimidation tactics by forces that want to threaten yearn by attacking andre and the devs. and thats not ok.

1 Like

Definitely we would protect our Andre and devs.

But that so called “EMN Investigation” twitter account only has 36 followers and the donation address got 0.39 ETH only.


And they are using this event to make another Yfork Scam.

Don’t be scare my frens. They can’t hurt us. We are the community.


+1 dont give it attention. Its literally just trying to do a double rug pull asking people to send ETH to a random address and forking YFI, again with an anon leading it. smh

1 Like

This is what insurance is for… create a product for it. No need to just take the easy way out and use the Treasury. Don’t agree with using the treasury for this.

1 Like

Yah, this is my thoughts exactly. I am all for yearn helping out if this ever actually comes to anything, but looks more like a scam than anything.


I agree that the developers should not be worried about any possible litigation that may arise from putting out code that we all benefit from. Otherwise they will not want to develop. I don’t know what the specifics should like, but in principle I agree that some of the Treasury should be earmarked for any possible lawsuits that may arise.

The underlying objective to this proposal is laudable, but I share the concerns of others concerning the lack of clarity on whether EMN was a Yearn project.

Another concern I haven’t seen mentioned is that establishing a standing promise to indemnify Yearn devs for liability claims is likely to incentivize lawsuits against the devs. Plaintiff’s attorneys don’t want the hassle of trying to collect against individual devs located in numerous jurisdictions around the world. A standing promise to indemnify devs, backed by a big ol’ pot of centralized funds, might as well be a giant, blinking neon sign saying “SUE YEARN DEVS.”

Then, of course, there is the issue of claims administration and making decisions with respect to the resolution of claims. No offense to my fellow YFI holders who are active in governance, but it would be a shit show voting on whether to settle claims.


Governance voting could provide a solution to answering what projects are covered under any such insurance if there is a vote before the fact, with an explanation provided as to how the project will benefit Yearn Finance.

I totally get concerns about misappropriation. Top of my mind is preservation of good team members, especially given some of the news stories as of late. An insurance fund, like a legal team, is just good practice.

1 Like

To put my primary criticisms of this proposal concerning intentivizing litigation and inability to effectively manage claims into practical terms, I fully expect that if this proposal is implemented, the cost of defending claims, without regard to indemnity obligations, likely will consume the entirety of Yearn’s treasury for years to come.

The foregoing effect of this proposal, in no small part, would be caused by Yearn competitors viewing litigation against Yearn devs as a good tactical move to attack Yearn. In fact, I wouldn’t be completely surprised if Yearn competitors begin to make proposals such as this for Yearn (and the Code of Conduct proposal).

I urge everyone to exercise extreme caution before agreeing to open-ended commitments of Yearn funds, such as this, even if (perhaps especially if) the stated justification for such commitments is a cause that appeals to everyone’s sense to “do the right thing” with an indeterminate amount of future earned funds.

1 Like

I do not know anything about jurisprudence, but how would someone in South Africa get sued by someone outside of South Africa? I mean if everyone is scattered throughout the world such that we don’t know what jurisdiction they fall under, how can anyone target them with litigation? Some of the developers are completely anonymous, seems like you need a first name and last name to be able to sue someone (I imagine). Perhaps this is a non-issue or perhaps I am completely out of my element asking questions with obvious answers. I hope others enlighten me as to the possible attack vectors of the Yearn ecosystem.

1 Like

You need to break down the jurisdictional question into two parts:

  1. Jurisdiction to pursue the initial liability claim; and

  2. If someone should prevail on the liability claim, jurisdiction to execute on the judgment debtor’s assets.

With respect to question no. 1, each country has a unique approach to determining the extent of its courts’ jurisdiction, and who the hell knows how a court would rule on this issue.

With respect to question no. 2., the establishment of a centralized indemnity fund would likely be subject to the jurisdiction of courts in just about every significant country. This is one way that the establishment of a standing indemnity obligation to the devs would cause them to become some of the most attractive targets for litigation in all of crypto.