Proposal 0 and integrity of the voting process

Update: I take back the idea - future proposals to overturn p0 can be made anyway if capping it turns out to be right thing to do :slight_smile:

Right now, proposal 0 looks like it is going to be pushing a permanent end to minting, which seems like a moon play over the long term survival of the project. It looks like an increasingly no win situation in the scenario where AGAINST wins (which is very likely)

-> If supply is permanently cut at 30K, it looks like a very premature end to the distribution needed to make YFI a legit force in the defi space.

-> On the flipside, if governance chooses to execute on a continued emission schedule, then it compromises the integrity of the voting process and makes the whole idea of DAO useless.

One way out: Do a mea culpa early on, and recognize that binding governance is likely not a good idea at this stage, and certain interventions might need to be made by the multi-sig signers in the first X months of the protocol.

The earlier this mea culpa is performed, the more it preserves the integrity of the process.

Proposal 0
Minting more $YFI -
FOR (32.15%): Allows weekly distribution of YFI. A second proposal will be submitted to decide how much would be printed weekly. 
AGAINST (67.84%): No more YFI tokens will be distributed. Global supply is locked at 30000 YFI permanently.