[POLL] YFI rewards release contract with voting incentive



YFI emission controlled by a contract with recipients and weights controlled by governance.


A contract that controls YFI inflation which releases the tokens weekly with customizable recipients and weights decided by governance via executable proposals. If the weekly proposal fails, no inflation happens and the weekly rewards are not released. This will require the community to continuously reevaluate and align around reward pools which work best for now. This will also presumably help with voter apathy.


Since there is a strong agreement on the inflation schedule, we can codify it in the smart contract. But there is no agreement or even discussion on where to funnel the newly minted YFI. This proposal keeps it flexible enough without sacrificing the schedule itself.


  1. Write a reward release contract which implements YIP 30 emission schedule.
  2. Assign it with minting rights and plug it into governance. Once access rights system is implemented, the contract should be adjustable via executable proposals.
  3. The contract is fed recipients and weights, so it can split rewards as outlined YIP 31, but with more flexibility.
  4. There could be two approaches to choosing the recipients and weights:
    a) continuous alignment: no rewards are released if a weekly proposal fails
    b) fine tuning: the contract remembers where the rewards were going and keeps it that way until a new proposal is accepted

Depends on: YIP 30, YIP 31

For: Implement YFI rewards release contract

Against: Use other approach


  • FOR: Implement YFI rewards contract with continuous alignment
  • FOR: Implement YFI rewards contract with fine tuning
  • AGAINST: Use some other approach

0 voters


Continuous alignment seems like an incredible amount of friction on the gears of the inflation engine. Are there other projects that have successfully implemented this?

1 Like

I’m on the fence here. On one hand it’s hard to rally a group each week and missing a reward period because of that seems like a missed opportunity. On the other hand, if we force weekly engagement governance will have a social contract to stay abreast of YFI updates and probably stay more aligned with the project.

Ultimately I think the friction is too much for weekly continuous, so I think fine tuning is the best model.


Agree with what @anderson said. Additionally, gas price must be taken into consideration here. What would happen if ETH double in value while gas price stays at 100gwei? Would people still engage and pay $5-$10 per vote?


Here is a thread that discusses solutions for that:

Mitigating the gas problem resolves a huge hurdle, we should definitely go ahead with it IMO.


I think this proposal will help with:
a) the implementation of any new proposal for inflation;
b) voter turnout;
c) flexibility of protocol in the future.

Therefore, I am definitely “FOR”, and I’m for the “fine tuning” option!