# Proposal 0 and integrity of the voting process

**URL:** <https://gov.yearn.fi/t/proposal-0-and-integrity-of-the-voting-process/180>\
**Category:** Proposals\
**Created:** [21 July 2020 13:45 UTC](https://gov.yearn.fi/t/proposal-0-and-integrity-of-the-voting-process/180 "2020-07-21T13:45:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![meowisms](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/gov.yearn.fi/meowisms/32/25_2.png) [@meowisms](https://gov.yearn.fi/u/meowisms)\
**Post date:** [21 July 2020 13:45 UTC](https://gov.yearn.fi/t/proposal-0-and-integrity-of-the-voting-process/180/1 "2020-07-21T13:45:47Z")

</div>

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 🙂

* * *

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._

```auto
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.

```