Proposal 0: YFI Supply

Vote live on under “0”


The total supply of YFI is 30,000.

10,000 YFI is allocated evenly between the yEarn, Balancer, and Governance pools for liquidity mining.

This proposal decides on whether or not the YFI supply should be capped in perpetuity or if the protocol should retain the ability to mint additional YFI tokens in the future as new pools come into play.

Voting Signal:

For: Allow future YFI to be minted. This will be superseded by a new proposal to discuss (and then vote) on weekly YFI allocations.

Against: The supply of YFI will be capped at 30,000 tokens.

Original Tweet:



pls vote for for moon mission :rocket: :full_moon:

will update tomorrow with rationale

tomorrow update
after careful deliberation with my peers i have reversed my position, plz vote for.

full tweetstorm:


According to S2F model, no more new supply means price is going to infinite!!


Curious to see the rationale for voting Against.

IMO with 6/30k (20%) of the supply already distributed, we’d be drastically favoring those who were in the loop the past few days.

This should be far less about early farmers making 100x and more about how to sustain an ecosystem with no premine and no IDO.


Not too many people are holding yfi yet, stopping the distribution so soon now with fixed hard cap 30k supply would have some unforeseen impact

1 Like

Thoughts on distribution;

  1. Continued incentivization of LPs (more AUM = more fees = more claimable rewards / YFI)
  2. Continued liquidity provision (liquidity for YFI is critical [future designs use it as collateral, so need easy on-ramps])

With YFI distribution disappearing, it could remove all liquidity and AUM, greatly decreasing weekly rewards


The above being said, I do recommend a greatly decreased emission rate and perhaps include time locked releases.


Vested rewards would be huge for sustainability.


I’m just thinking about GRIN and it’s infinite supply. It sort of disincentivizes the kind of behaviour that lead to YFI’s value increase, no? Meaning the LP’s would definitely never have profits like they do now. And how would you calculate the correct timing for release?

1 Like

Snapshot of the vote for reference at this time


It would be great to have an embedded description for each Proposal and a link to the forum for discussion.


People need to take profits, this is how tokens get distributed. But I agree that it does benefit those in the loop the last feel days. I say let’s wait for the dust to settle before allowing for more issuance. It’s best to wait for the data once emissions end before making a rushed decision. There are a lot of questions that still need to be answered regarding issuance.

  • How much is optimal?
  • How often?
  • Which ways should they be distributed?
    Of course we can always YOLO and do it like Andre has been doing. After all, it seems to be working.

Would make the most sense to stall this increase in supply for now until we have concrete plans.

Can’t stay at 30k forever though. People will just go poof once this frenzy is over. We need more people in the Y Pool (and other IEarn products) over the long term, not less.


I think a lot of people are wrongly seeing this as a finite supply vs infinite supply vote.

Personally, I feel more time is needed to actually discuss what an ideal emission rate should be.


It’s not like people were not using yearn before this whole thing happened. But I agree that we need to wait for the data to come in before we can make a more informed decision on how to proceed.


Agree with time locked. Could potentially mint FIY and mint options with higher valuations as well, similarly to employee stock options. If adds value, options get exercised and early holders win. No continuous dump.

Happy to support FIY on our options protocol. Already ready :slight_smile:


True, but a lot less people were using Y. People chase yield which is why most were in the SUSD pool.

Just something to think about.

1 Like

The whole purpose of token distribution is to actually distribute tokes, time lock is an artificial way to create demand. YFI is the only liquidity mining token that I have decided to not sell. This is because I think the project has incredible potential, there was no VC distribution and the tokenomics make sense. If the people want to sell, others that see the potential in the project will buy. I don’t think we should have a time lock.


Sure, but there is real utility in the product. I agree we need to subsidize in the beginning to get traction, and to have people learn more about the product. But after that the product needs to continue on its own merit.


Come to think about it, instead of a time lock. Why not just incentive YFI token holder to actually stake their YFI to be eligible for more YFI if we are not going to have limited issuance. We are at least giving people the right to choose what they want to do.