Proposal: Create a new product, yPools


If this proposal were to be enacted, would create a new product, yPools, similar to yVaults but with increased risk.


This proposal is to create a new segment to complement the yVaults, which we would call yPools. While Vaults have a requirement that a user can be guaranteed to withdraw at least what they put in, yPools would be risk-on investments where things such as impermanent loss would not be outright banned.


Currently, is strongly limited in the strategies that can be utilized in the yVaults due to their core ethos: that a user’s deposits will never decrease in the number of coins they input. While this is an exceptional ideal, there is a large segment of cryptocurrency investments and yield farming that are locked out of being applicable for yVaults due to this security requirement. For example, when Uniswap listed their UNI farms, it was not possible for yVaults to capture this yield due to the risk of impermanent loss.

Many users in crypto are bullish by nature, and have a risk-on attitude. While I don’t believe we should subject the vaults to risk, I do believe that having riskier strategies (with the risks very clearly outlined on the webpage) would be of great value to the yearn brand and help us compete more directly with the likes of Harvest and Pickle. While we may not be able to beat their rates (since they still have an inflating token as part of their rewards), the branding of would undoubtedly still draw in notable value to lock into the protocol, and therefore also increase the value of the YFI governance token.

There is significant trust and goodwill surrounding the yearn ecosystem, so I am confident that many folks would trust yearn’s reduced yields for the confidence that there will not be a rug pull or other risk with the newer protocols.


Simple: the logic for yVaults would be able to be applied to riskier ventures, so long as those ventures are listed under the Pools branding. Users can choose for themselves whether they wish to take a risk-on approach or not.

For: Good idea

Against: Bad idea


  • For
  • Against
0 voters

Edit: Added poll.


I fully support this as along as the UI clearly defines the difference. When I first came to yearn, it took me quite a bit of digging to find out that the capital put in can never be lost. I think by having these ypools not will benefit two ways.

Attract new risk seekers and force the dev to clearly define the products already present.

I wonder where that name came from :upside_down_face:

I (obviously) think this is a worthwhile idea, but I also think it’d be good to have a few yPools to launch whenever we formalize the name/product or else it’s just fluff. Are you currently working to code some of these up?


I’m currently still working on strategies for v2 vaults, since I had a few of those proposed already. I wanted to raise this proposal now, so that if it got positive feedback I could start working on the yPools once I was ready :smiley: