As I said, that wasn’t a personal attack on anyone or any YFI hodlers, although it appears to have struck a nerve…
There are thousands of people that are in the deFi space that still don’t know about this protocol, and they’ve been in it for years. Yes, they might know about YFI because it is now “on the map” so to speak, but they don’t know about the protocol and yield farming. So it’s irrelevant how long I’ve been in the deFi space because a week is an insignificant amount of time for any type of product. There is plenty of other things out there occupying would be LP’s time that a speculative protocol, with enormous risks that has been live for a week, wouldn’t even cross their radar. Veterans of deFi might be learning other protocols, focused on other areas of the crypto world, investing and trading in the financial markets, etc…
Anyways, I don’t really mind either way what happens, as I have no vested interest in the protocols success or failure. I was just adding my 2 cents. I will definitely be following this protocol to see how it fares over the next few weeks/months though. Cheers
@irrelevant Shame on you. Don’t comment on what you don’t know about. It’s embarassing. How can you be so entitled to suggest a monetary policy after two days of research?
There are points to inflationary monies. Making “fairer systems” is never one of them. In fact it is usually the opposite. Inflationists love to give their frens money before the market dilutes value.
Was the initial distribution of YFI fair? Absolutely. Everyone had access to the same information. Everyone could stake funds and mine YFI. Everyone could and still can buy YFI at a decent price.
YFI is not money. It is a governance token. I did not suggest any policy at all, I asked for a consideration of a few points. You speak as though this is a fully developed protocol. It is an experiment. Yes, it was a fair initial offering, I agree. However, it isn’t worth the risk for such mediocre returns at this point in time IMO. Just because I just got into the deFi space recently does not mean I haven’t studied and researched monetary policies, I wouldn’t even be in the crypto space if I hadn’t. Everyone had access to the same information and opportunity for a week… There were no marketing efforts made to promote this protocol (this is not a complaint just an observable fact). Only people who had been following andre and his work would even know this existed and was going to launch. The initial offering lasted a whole week, and the majority of the community is on board for more than half of its governance tokens to have been already minted in that week. I’m beating a dead horse here… Anyways good luck with this.
@irrelevant Again. Don’t come into this forum after two days of “research” and pressure for a monetary policy. This behaviour is irresponsible and shameful. Please show some respect for people who have been working in this field for years.
@Garry I am being brutally honest. I am interested in building a serious financial product and developing a highly significant technical standard.
I do have a problem with hucksters coming in here after two days of research claiming to be experts on monetary policy. It sets a bad precedent, and it should be discouraged. People need to know what the hell they are talking about. Serious capital is at risk in these protocols, and it is up to us to set the bar very very high when it comes to governance participation.
Fortunately, these people do not have the ability to influence a vote.
I initially too thought that inflation was bad, but in reality the farming incentives are what drove investors to the protocol and that has led to the appreciation of YFI. For those gains to continue, inflation on some schedule is a must. Now how that can be coupled CRV is what I still don’t have my mind wrapped around it. If the pool could yield YFI and CRV at the same time and re stake yCRV for YFI again. You’d be allowed to exploit YFI price surges with its disbursement and CRV price surges as well. My gut tells me that’s what the whales want and that has the highest chance of success to draw in a large farming crowd.
I didnt farm at all. I bought. The only discussion i see here is from liquidity providers. What about the fiduciary duty to shareholders WHO SIMPLY BOUGHT? So we deserve to be diluted just so you can feel you got a fair share. I bought into the club. Do the same or stop whining and be left behind.
@roman220 you don’t need inflation to drive money into YFI, you need liquidity providers. If yCRV offers superior APY, this is incentive enough to draw capital into yPools. Further incentives may be provided by the weak inflation models provided.
I don’t think a 30k hardcap is good short term, but aggressive inflation as a driver of growth is a delusion. You cannot fake protocol growth by incentivizing via inflation because then you get addicted to the inflation and undermine the protocol. Growth without inflation and without incentives is real growth. I support the 42k and 50k models, but will strongly oppose any higher level of inflation. The incentive should be the product itself.
The only one I have stated I agree to is proposal A. I understand that you need organic growth. I believe that most liquidity providers jumped onto the ship because of the lucrative distribution of YFI.
@roman220 Yes, and that’s okay. That was the point of distributing YFI in this way. However, do not confuse a token distribution event with a long term monetary policy. Inflation undermines real growth.
Contrary to your belief, we have all been contemplating this issue for some time. And most of us are willing to compromise on the issue. But the reality is that we don’t necessarily need yield farming to make YFI successful. So having high inflation doesn’t make that much sense to most of us.
I’m sure most people here don’t want to hear it but I’m picking up some strong “greed” vibes from this thread. I agree that yield farming isn’t necessary for YFI to be successful but it would certainly help wider adoption. The current narrative of fair distribution (which it has been) with no founder’s allocation, no premine, no partnership allocations, no ICO, and no advisor tokens was the main thing that peaked my interest in this project. That kinda goes out the window if a small group of people that happened to mine it for a week controls the fate of the token. Tokens rise and fall on narratives, and I think early adopters sitting on the majority of total distributed tokens hurts longevity. I’d call for more discussion before anything that can’t be changed is decided. Currently I’d vote for Model D or E.
Might != right. Hopefully the whales and everyone else can realize that by refusing to ideologically compromise we have a 100% chance of fucking ourselves over. As long as we have the option to repeal one of these models we can always revisit this issue.
No economic model will ever work if it doesn’t respect human behavior and if we continue to discuss and not act we will drive people away from what is a very good idea.
I support Models D, E.
Staking is way better than farming.