Is it possible for us to rename yCRV (I believe it would be more appropriate and would comply with market conventions for this to be called yUSD - would also make thinks like whitelisting on BAL easier for people to understand)? Or would this need to be done by Curve team?
If it is possible, I would suggest that someone creates a proposal along the lines of the above.
But yCRV value is not 1$ – why renaming it to yUSD? This is at least misleading.
I also don’t see how renaming would make it “easier for people to understand”.
I think the use of CRV in yCRV does cause some confusion, at least during the period in which Curve has yet to release the actual CRV token. It also maybe isn’t wise to put another project’s brand identity on one of the most public-facing tokens in the yearn ecosystem.
yCRV references to “y” pool in curve.fi/y, i see nothing confusing about the name.
yLP or yLT? but I think it would take some effort to rename it.
I’m fine to stick with current naming of yCRV, though it cause some confusion with CRV.
The concern might be; upon
curve.fi CRV token launch we can observe both DAI-YFI and yCrv-YFI pools, along with CRV-Token pairs co-existing.
The balancer interface does show yCrv pairs ETH/yCrv pair - balancer.exchange already and makes it clear by showing the name of the yCrv pool (with the pooled y-USD constituents) and also the corresponding token icons.
The convention for the naming is canonical, using the prefix ‘y’; and capitalizing the proper noun ‘Crv’ meaning the pool within
curve.fi/y. Thus ‘yCrv’ makes sense to me.
yCrv token pools can be name as such.
See this good example from Zerion.io:
500bitcoins asked me to post this on his behalf due to a limiting issue:
This is exactly what I was referring to @TerraBellus. So for example, in trying to get this whitelisted on Balancer, there was some pushback that “this is just like BPT”. That’s why the use of CRV seems a bit off to me.
If we are trying to use yCRV as a meta stablecoin (which it is) then I would propose naming it accordingly. Regarding the argument that yCRV is not 1 USD @milkyklim, I think this is similar to dUSD - it also won’t represent exactly 1 USD due to the curve used.
This was more a technical question (can we rename it?) than a request for comment on what name we can use. We could use yUSD, ySTBL or anything else we want, but I’m concerned that in using yCRV it makes it very similar to BPT and decreases the chances of it being accepted as a meta stablecoin.
We were confused.
We almost gave up trying to understand this at first. Yes, once the concept is understood it’s a no brainer but we agree that this is confusing to someone who is brand new into yearn.
Well in the example above, yCrv and sCrv are both curve pools, I believe Balancer generally would not reject curve pools BPTs for whitelisting, since it brings volume to the BAL protocol?
Composability is key.
Technically, we can put up a request for renaming. But on the pretext of the frivolous renaming, I would argue that yCRV / yCrv suits the current use case perfectly (see previous posting).