Fully agree, although it seems integrity is not a value to be considered while voting on YFI Governance.
Only the “future of the platform” is important, no moral no ethic.
I wonder if someone rally enough votes to pass a proposal that seize all yVaults and distribute the tokens to themselves. What is the limit of what Governance can do? It seems the bigger risk of yVaults LPs is not Smart Contract bugs but Governance integrity.
3 Likes
Exactly. I thought contract risk was the biggest risk. It appears that governance is actually a more serious one to my LP. I assume they are tone deaf to just how big of a deal this will become of option 2 were passed. What next, a retroactive vacation tax on all Vault LPs for the YFI team? How can any LP trust the team if they enact that. Perhaps they have forgotten who pays the bills - the LPs. Lose their trust and you lose your revenue stream. I will say no more (in this forum) on the matter.
7 Likes
are you guys kidding? this is beneficial for everyone. i don’t see any comment where anybody complains or gives a valid argument against this decision except [it’s not what was promised].
well something better has come along, and i seriously doubt anybody would see this as tainting YFI reputation because ‘stakeholders didnt do what was promised’, quite the opposite they (Andre) saw an opportunity to add value and it was implemented.
to the comment that this should be market sold immediately, it’s distributed over 365 days so selling the daily rewards until the price drops is questionably more profitable than receiving 2.5x the rewards in the long run.
We can let it go. It clearly benefits people in yVault today. I do think “that’s not what was promised” is considered a fairly valid argument in many parts of the world, by the way. Kind of the basis of functioning society. Looks like 3 will pass, which at least takes the stink off of it. But about 15 people have complained in this thread and your argument is “no one is complaining”. Interesting logical framework for debate. If others want to raise objections they can. Clearly people that remained in (me), or came in later (sounds like you) are going to benefit. Fair enough. I find option 3 to be reasonable and if other LPs at the time don’t care (likely because they stayed in or don’t know) then I am fine. Let’s move on.
2 Likes
Should they care they shall speak up but neither on Discord nor here have I heard of somebody that feels like they’re being treated unfairly.
Promoted to YIP 37. Voting is live!
1 Like
My main contention with the argument based on the tweet is that it was posted on the 14th. How many people deposited between the tweet and now, in order to get the CRV. I will admit to being somewhat uncomfortable about this situation, however I really do not know what LPs were expecting in this situation.
Is there an industry standard for this situation at the moment?
I do not think the argument about it benefiting all YFI holders is fair as some LPs may not hold YFI. If LPs had a fair and reasonable expectation that they would receive the CRV then personally I cannot vote in favour of 3 at this stage. However, I have no idea about the answer to this question.
Fwiw, I presumed I would receive proportional CRV, potentially minus a fee, but that was some naivete due to it just being a test amount.
2 Likes
TheSouthSeaCompany and I were repeatedly disagreeing with you today in discord in which you said, everyone on the forum agrees. People are clearly voicing that it is unfair and you refuse to acknowledge it and pass it off like people are complaining about the idea being wrong, some early LPs are wanting their share of CRV clearly.
scroll up or look through discord.
1 Like
We’ve already seen coin vote flip of a seemingly unanimously supported proposal. Please vote with your YFI on chain. The vote for this is live.
2 Likes
I think this debate really shines the light on an uncomfortable problem here. There’s a conflict of interest between LPs and YFI holders. I believe initially they were supposed to be the same group, or have their interests aligned, but clearly this is no longer the case.
Take for example someone discovering Yearn today. In order to get 1/30,000 of the voting power they need to pay 7,000 USD. Same goes for dividends. When does this calculation make sense? How long to break even? Several people have contributed yCRV without owning YFI and they have been expecting CRV. They are clearly a group whose interests are not aligned with those of YFI holders.
The distribution of YFI is unsound. During a short window in time well positioned people got lots ot it cheaply. LPs at the time got it. But anyone joining in today is at great disadvantage. Brings to mind old world power distribution (USA, russian oligarchs) recreated in defi where a small privileged groups hold all the advantages and the power of vote. Rich get rich, power disparities grow. It’s hard to see how this is a heading in a good direction.
Option 2 clearly states to take the fruit of LP contribution and distribute it to YFI holders. It almost feels like it ignores that more and more LPs will not be YFI holders because it’s too expensive for them.
3 Likes
Isn’t this true for every coin? We’re still early. Just buy some.
the main point is that LPs and YFI holders interests could get less and less aligned in this scenario
All LPs have a choice to buy YFI, stop being an LP, or just enjoy the nice APY.
So explain the maths to me. I invest 7,000 usd to buy 1 YFI. When break even?
- No need to buy a whole YFI. Those that got in early benefited from taking extreme risk. Risk is less now, so costs more to get in.
- DYOR. Cash flows are ridiculous right now.
- If you’re concerned about “breaking even”, it might be worth considering a different mindset in crypto. My 2 cents.
So you’re saying I better use my money to buy YFI than to be an LP. I think this confirms the conflict of interest if anything?
- Just evades the question. Are you saying whatever I put into buying YFI will be profitable?
Why not do both? I have no idea which one is better. I have no idea if any of this is going to be profitable or work out at all. It’s fucking crypto, dude.
1 Like
I think you mistook the intention of Option 2. Most of the liquidated CRV will be given to all LPs as yield, except for the dividends (performance fees of 5% of those yield) which is given to YFI stakers.
If YFI stakers ever votes to “steal” all the CRV rewards from yCRV LPs, yCRV LPs like me will probably exit the yVault completely. No yCRV = No dividends for YFI stakers anymore. It will be short-term thinking and a stupid decision by YFI stakers imo.
Well this brings some other questions to mind. I was an LP for that pool until Curve launched. I exited on Saturday. So I’m no longer in the pool. But my contribution has yielded some of the CRV currently in the pool, which I have expected to receive. What am I entitled to? Something? Nothing? If I put my yCRV back now will I get back my claim? When do I need to have my yCRV in the pool to profit from this 4 year lockup. At start? At the end? The whole 4 years?
From my understanding if Option 3 is chosen, then you will not receive the vested yCRV as an LP. What will happen is that the strategy for yVault will be staking all released CRV from the preallocation vesting schedule regularly, for 4-years.
This will boost the yVault’s CRV daily rewards for a certain amount of pooled yCRV by 2.5x. I’m not sure what the current yCRV limit that can be boosted, need help on this calculation from @andre.cronje But, these boosted daily rewards will significantly increase the daily emission of CRV distributed to yVault, which will be harvested and then given to LPs in the form of more yield. This should significantly boost the APY of yVault by a bunch, probably ~2x.
2 Likes