This is the beauty of governance. We can vote and change the strategy and there’s no denying that 2.5x rewards and governance in the CRV DAO for $YFI is optimal.
This is just one example of why the $YFI token is so valuable.
If you think it’s unfair, you may want to buy more or begin rallying others to your side in favor of liquidation.
As you can see it was showing on the UI preCRV that we would receive CRV.
That’s why LP expect to receive these CRV.
You must have skipped the screen before that said, "This project is in beta. Use at your own risk."
Regardless we understand your perspective.
If you were shopping on Amazon and their website said something different, they’d probably say our mistake and give you a refund.
But this is not Amazon and we are not selling soap.
YEARN is a decentralized autonomous organization controlled by $YFI holders.
$YFI holders alone… no one else will get to vote on what to do with the $CRV.
We expect $YFI holders will do what’s in the best interest of the future of the protocol and that is choosing 2.5X REWARDS AND VOTING IN THE $CRV DAO.
The UI is confusing, I’ll grant you that, but all I can do is reiterate the same point. If it’s not in the contract or if it hasn’t been decided by governance then it doesn’t matter. Confusing or not.
UI used some less ideal labeling. When you looked into how it worked, CRV was the yCRV you invested and yCRV was the yyCRV vault tokens you held. Don’t think that was ever intended to represent your CRV tokens. Again this was/is a “beta product” with emphasis on the back end not the UI so one wouldn’t expect a perfect UI with tool tips as it was intended for more experienced users who understood the risks involved
In the early stage of mining, I saved ycrv into vaults, but I didn’t get the early-crv I deserved
Yes option 3 sounds awesome but it’s only fair to also distribute to the vault holders. So 50-50. And I wouldn’t mind a lockup period for the distribution.
Curve.fi said this many, many times.
Charlie specifically said that it would be the same to have yCrv than to have yCrv in yVault as to the pre-release amounts.
However, option 3 is greatly beneficial, so I really doubt that anybody that was expecting additional vested crvs (and I include myself here), would oppose.
A little bit of asking around would’ve cleared up this for you.
Either I am understanding this wrong or most of the commentators are, option 3 is not only beneficial to yVault holders since it’ll boost their returns by ~2.5, it also gives YFI stakers a governance right in Curve + the additional fees out of the yVault.
This seems like a clear win-win to me and I definitely would choose it over having my pre-release Crv liquidated to me since if you make the calculations the pre-release amount per investor is pretty insignificant in comparison of what is distributed on a daily basis. So having that boost will be very much beneficial to current yVault stakers and make it much desirable.
The only, very few, that I could think might disagree are those that had money in the vault but are not longer in it and have no desire to. But this really is a very marginal case.
Option 3 ALL THE WAY – win-win for yVault stakers and YFI stakers and yearn in general. Excellent proposal.
You have to take in consideration that preCRV vault volume was not necessarily the same volume as postCRV therefore the boost of 2.5 is diluted by the amount of people in the postCRV vault.
Therefore if the postCRV get bigger and bigger (Which I wish) it will penalize the preCRV LP. That’s why I think we should give the preCRV to the LP and start the option 3 from now. At least all LP will be aware of where the CRV are going and they can decide if they want to stay or not.
I’m in the same boat. Happy to surrender my vested curve to the vault for option 3 as a YFI holder for the good of the platform, and I’m sure many share similar opinions. Those who don’t agree can vote with their YFI. I would have to imagine many stand to gain much more with 2.5x crv bonus now than slowly cashing out crv over a year.
Much of the value of a governance protocol is the possibility of being flexible, able to adapt to new contexts seeking to strengthen the platform.
Option 3 aligns long-term benefits for both the protocol (YFI holders) and the current and new yVault stakers, since:
Gives CRV voting rights to YFI, a long-term benefit for the YFI ecosystem and token holders.
Boost yVault APY, a benefit for current and future yVault stakers.
In fact, it can represent a “cost” for (some) LPs that have chosen to allocate a large amount of yCRV to yVault in during the preCRV period with the expectation of receiving $CRV rewards in addition to the vault’s APY.
However, eventually those same LPs that will be “losing” some APY in the short term, giving up their $CRV rewards, will have a proportionally much higher profit by now reallocating their yCRV in yVault with the 2.5x boost.
not quite, because the 2.5x apply also to the new volume since they gain crv as well for the pool, so if there’s a 2x increase of $ in the vault, there’ll be a total 2x2.5 of crv tokens distributed.
I really think this is just a genius idea.
Just do the math on this, if you get 2.5 more daily crv, you’ll be recuperating your ‘loss’ in no time. Trust me, it’s the best option.
After reading the comments and giving it further thought, I think #3 is best. No distribution. Long term this is best not just for yearn but all the vault holders for the 2.5x and influence on Curve.
I think option 3 is an excellent choice from a pure financial engineering perspective. If not for the fact it would be a complete betrayal of the LPs that earned that CRV. I really think this creates serious reputation damage to the yearn brand, and frankly Andre. It was clearly stated through the Curve channel that the intent (from Andre) was to distribute this to the original yCRV LPs that earned this. That fact that many may still be in the Vault is irrelevant. The LPs who were in YVault for the time preceding the snapshot are entitled to that CRV. Full stop. I think this is very dangerous territory, and not exactly how I was hoping the yearn brand would develop. Was hoping for a bit more integrity and not just flat out self-interest.
I am still in yVault and plan to stay there so it would certainly benefit me to go with option 3. The fact that option two is even on the table is nauseating.
Wrong it was not, that was a bug
Honestly, the crv should be market sold now, and if people really want a boost wait a few weeks and buy crv back at a lower price. I think everyone can agree crv will drop in price. We really dont have time to discuss what to do while our profits dwindle and need a consul or dao to make this choice for us in a day.
There is a tweet from the official yearn account stating that historic CRV will be claimable, so not implementing that promise would be tantamount to fraud or in the very least highly misleading marketing.
It would be possible to compile a list of the rightful owners of the pre-launch CRV by building on top of the Python script that Michael used for the vesting calculation. Of course it might be that nobody wants to work on it, since at the moment, none of the three alternatives would make use of it anyway.
For the record, I was not a pre-launch investor in the vault so I have nothing to gain from this and in fact would lose from it. This is a matter of integrity over profits.
