I am not against rewarding LPs and anyone else. The question for me is can we use the aDAI reserve pool to do this? Theoretically we could inch out our opponents rate wise like wally world does without ever printing a YFI
1 Like
Agreed. Magnitude of LP incentive is debatabe and can fluctuate, but it is not obvious that an LP incentive be of YFI. Could use aDAI, yCurve, yUSDC, or any other/future yearn product for desired incentives.
2 Likes
Have had more discussions since posting and want to propose this change & gather feedback before we push to an on-chain proposal.
- Split emissions to LP & Multisig 50/50 to begin with, rather than 75/25.
The thinking being:
- It affords the community more resources to build out the ecosystem.
- 50/50 allows more flexibility and avoids backlash, as it’s ‘easier’ to dial up LP rewards than down.
- Better to be over-funded than underfunded.
Assuming $3,000 YFI and proposed inflation rate, this would allocate 2,824 YFI ($8,472,000) to LPs and the Multisig alike in the first year of emission.
Quick poll:
- 50/50 LP/Multisig
- 75/25 LP/Multisig
0 voters
4 Likes
Will keys be burned after YIP30,31 are implemented?
It will not be part of either proposal. If it is proposed by someone else and passed, that’s fine, but the authors of yip30/31 ultimately agreed on tail emission for long term sustainability.
No one is really against it, we just don’t actually see the need for it right now.
Why do we not try to have the best of both worlds?
On one hand, some YFI issue (inflation), on the other hand some burning mechanism causing deflationary pressure.
Someone earlier proposed not to distribute ecosystem rewards via staking but to use them to buy YFI off the market and burn them. Basically an extreme version of buy-back (buy-back with burning) vs dividend distribution.
Psychologically, knowing that tokens are constantly burned – and more are burned as the project grows successful – will be a strong motivator to hoard/buy/farm and never dump.
Incidentally, since yip01 was rejected due to failing quorum, at the moment we are still supposed to be in the “burning” mode rather than the “staking” mode.
PS: Burning model is superior to earning distribution also tax-wise.
2 Likes
I will vote for 50/50. 8m is not really a large allocation for a project like this, and 4m could become very thin. I think there is a need for some degree of centralisation. In this case we overfund the DAO initially (but not too aggressively) while simultaneously locking up half of the inflation. Also we need to raise money for contract audits, engineering, development, ui, conference fees, other expenses, etc.
In any case, I think that the token supply allocated to the multisig should not be able to vote. This would be a conflict of interest. Given 20% quoroms the DAO would be able to pass most things in its favor undermining the community run aspect. Tokens in the multisig contract should be blacklisted from voting, and quorom threshold should be adjusted to 20% of elligable supply vs. 20% of total supply.
Voting on YIP-30 is live!
1 Like
Closing this one to streamline discussion to actual YIP 30 post by @Substreight. 