The on-chain voting for this proposal was started 2 days earlier than proposal 0 was decided upon. I feel it should either be considered invalid or reassigned with a new number.
>>> gov.proposals(0).end
10508222
>>> gov.proposals(5).start
10496829
1 Like
More explanation on the rationale would be appreciated.
While so, I believe the supply should not be capped. Continual distribution of YFI helps decentralising the governance with, not only later YFI buyers, but also later protocol participants.
I have just made a bitcoin halving model on YFI:
Proposal 8
The YFI’s cap will be 60,000 after 10 weeks’ token distribution
As I commented in this post:
Things to determine before YFI issuance parameters
I think there other things we need to figure out before we can decide on the best approach for a future issuance model.
In regards to this particular proposal, I think it shoots our load much too quickly. Why would we need to double the supply in only 10 weeks? First of all that is much more yield than necessary to draw users into the various pools we want incentivized. Secondly it only gives us 10 weeks worth of incentivization, which is not much time.
I will vote NO to this proposal, and I think we should have a minimum of 2 weeks or so before we bring an issuance proposal to a vote, during which we need to figure out other aspects of an organized approach to this. Namely what to incentivize and how much to incentivize it, as I discussed in the post linked above.
3 Likes
What is the @yfi_whale Position on Prop 5?
Proposal did not reach quorum (6% out of 33% minimum).
It had 1,123,689, votes for and 485,164 votes against.