Just printing 1k YFI makes no sense as a long term incentive. Why not take the revenues to fill the treasury until it has ~2 years runway, then distribute the remaining to YFI holders. And use e.g. 10% of the revenues to buy back YFI and distribute to devs with 2y vesting.
7 Likes
I suggest we see how v2 fees start looking before we go minting new tokens. A lot of changes have been made recently to help compensate developers: (1) New fee structure, increasing compensation to Strategists, (2) permanent Operations Fund to help compensate contributors, (3) a new potential buy back and distribute plan for contributors.
Why not see how all these things progress? If it is still insufficient we can re-evaluate. Governance is meant to be an ever changing, evolving, and fluid structure. If things are not working, we can always change them, but let’s give some time to analyze how the recent YIPs will affect everything.
9 Likes
I see that @banteg and @tracheopteryx @milkyklim are on opposite sides of this proposal. Is there a version of this which the team would unanimously support? Maybe pairing a one-off mint with a burning of the minting keys?
Not sure if this current version will end up motivating the team if they themselves are split on the idea.
6 Likes
I think 99% of us support the developers immensely and would like to see them paid more but minting more tokens is a bad idea and a slippery slope.
4 Likes
We should not forget that a fair launch distribution has already been proven as an incentive scheme. The “indentured servants” of BTC core managed to build the cornerstone of digital currency protocols without resorting to ad-hoc debasement.
I can’t think of a worse inflation schedule than “This would be one-time, unless in a few years we determined we had not done enough.” Sounds almost exactly like the Fed during QE 1. Now we live in QE infinity.
1 Like
I am waiting to see how this one ([Proposal] Buyback and Build) resolves and consider token printing as last resort.
7 Likes
Ok that’s fair. At the end of the day, the goal of these proposals is to give the devs and executive team the resources and incentives they need to stay motivated and achieve yearn’s potential. It’s hard to do that without getting a clear, unanimous message from the team on how they’d like that to happen.
Also, it’s clearly in everyone’s interest to keep the team fully motivated since there are so many amazing projects in the pipeline. If the team comes up with a proposal that everyone internally agrees on, I’d put that up for a snapshot vote, instead of a poll here. The signal to noise ratio on twitter and these threads is understandably low. I’d like to see how larger token holders react to a proposal that once and for all addresses the issue of team/dev motivation.
2 Likes
I voted no for this but wanted to explain my thinking:
From my understanding from another post, YFI generates around $4m in fees a year. These ‘dividends’ can be claimed by YFI stakers. For an early-stage growth company like YFI I would prioritise capital growth over dividend receipt and forgo the ability to receive fees in order for the team to receive the compensation their work deserves. Hopefully those fees continue to grow and if at some point in the distant future there is a surplus, they can be distributed to holders (or used in another way to continue growth)
Changing the supply cap and doing so in a way that suggests an open-ended increase, as this wording does, would damage one of the key selling propositions of YFI in my opinion.
Of course, I say this without knowledge of the necessary developer costs so any more information on that would be helpful.
2 Likes
I voted yes because 1000 is really a drop in the bucket. The fact that 30 percent voted yes just shows people want to support the Devs. If it can’t be done with the 1000 yfi. It should be able to be done with fees that should grow substantially going forward with v2.
1 Like
I agree with most of your logic, just wanted to note that dividends support capital growth by being paid to investors. Diverting dividends from investors could potentially hurt capital growth, all things being equal.
1 Like
I voted no because I think the supply meme is important enough to hold onto, if possible.
I’m very much in favor of buyback and build, but it leaves a hole in the near-term. If there is price appreciation this year, the development team will not commensurately participate.
To fix this near-term issue, I suggest we crowdfund a dev pool immediately and have offered up a significant match in an effort to get the ball rolling: 10-20 YFI for Dev pool from me
If we’re able to secure a couple more matches, I imagine things could move quite quickly.
If this fails, I’m in favor of some inflation as a near-term stop-gap until buyback and build starts working properly.
3 Likes
Against. For supporting devs, but against ignoring the first onchain vote (which was contentious and led to initial clone projects). Devalues YFI narrative.
Would reconsider if it included burning of keys and statement from Andre that he would actually accept the minted funds. AND we should do only 1 modification at a time (wait until buyback and build proposal voting finishes). Too many variables.
Proposal also based on current revenue. What if revenue 10x after v2? Multisig have unlimited authority to re up the $500k treasury infinitely so infinite budget already. What if we just upped salaries and frequency of treasury refills?
7 Likes
If we don’t figure out a way to align dev and holder incentives this little fairytale will end. 1K YFI is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I voted FOR as a result.
9 Likes
Altruism doesn’t work. Would help a little but not to the same scale as a mandates, system-wide change.
1 Like
You get it. Thank you.
Sorry, but this is wrong. YFI’s narrative is to become the world’s leading bank. The price action narratives of today are made obsolete by the products of tomorrow. Look at Ethereum versus Bitcoin.
We should get @andre.cronje & crew to write a statement saying that they would accept the funds and potentially do a burn at the same time. Great idea.
Short term narrative change that will lead to us winning long-term.
Willing to take the bumps for the space ride.
1 Like
For : devs need vested upside into the protocol. For minting 1K YFI, but vesting over multiple years necessary
3 Likes
This post is attracting a lot of people. And a lot of new faces here !
Emotion is taking a big part in a lot of messages.
But let’s try to be more rational.
Why do we need that ? Can we have more data ? How much do we need to pay our Devs ? What are we talking about ?
How many Devs are in that list ? After removing core contributors (with recurrent grant) or strategists (they already received Incentives with fees)
We need to know that !
Then more philosophical comments. Does the point and the goal of V2 isn’t to increase TVL, so increase fees so increase the treasury ? If this is the case I’m sure our Devs will receive their parts.
And finally, and this is something fundamental. How do we see Yearn as a project and a DAO ? We already voted to freeze the supply as @Dark , @tracheopteryx and others already mentioned.
So what does that means ? What is the point of voting if 6 months later we didn’t take it into account, and we make a new one. Is it how we want to build the project and work as a community ?
Since the beginning 30k YFI is the core of this project. And we all agreed for that. If we change that, the project will take another direction, and I’m not sure people will trust the project any more.
10 Likes
Disagree. Startups are meant to be flexible. Equity issuance is the best way to align incentives, plain and simple. Look at Elon and Tesla. I know numerous investors who only invest if the CEO has over 10% of the company.
How much of YFI do our builders own? Less than 1%…
There are a lot of people who will never buy YFI purely from this misalignment of incentives.
1 Like
The devs are inadequately compensated. How do the builders of a project own so little of the equity of their project?
Imagine building something that can literally become the future of finance, only to have a bunch of free riders say that they deserve more than you because of irrelevant memes.
1 Like