I remain open to ideas here, but my inclination now is to pass the buyback proposal and see how that goes. If that provides the revenue needed then no reason to mint more YFI.
Ideally we burn the YFI minting keys, have the funds to properly grow yearn and reward contributors, AND give solid dividends. I think we can get there.
Another yearn system linked token where the team does have a decent stake would probably be a better idea than expanding YFI itself.
I think I prefer to use the funds from the Buyback and Build to allocate a % of the YFI being rebought through that proposal to the Core Devs.
I think minting more YFI (Through a fork or Otherwise) is less desirable than an ongoing salary fund.
I disagree with the social contract of 30k hardcap.
Bitcoin has the same mindset, and they’re getting blown out of the water by Etehreum because of it. 3% ownership to devs is more important than that social contract. Our job should be to have minimal viable issuance, just like Ethereum, in my opinion.
What’s the logic here? Let’s not be Bitcoin. This idea of hard caps for start-ups is very romantic but not necessarily the best execution path for maximal value. I’d rather have a smaller piece of a bigger pie, so long as my piece is bigger than the altnerative.
Love the proposal you & co put up–thank you. I agree–we should strive for minimal viable issuance, and be extremely hesitant about the minting of any additional coin.
If the community is willing to give up all revenue to our developers for the foreseeable future, that may solve the problem. I am not sure if it will though–it’s been three months since Watkin’s proposal and nothing has happened.
Completely agree. Minimal viable issuance is a must–and we want to make sure any additional issuance is conducted extremely wisely. I just hate the Bitcoin idea of a hard cap–they’re going to lose to Ethereum because of their ossification. It’s an idea worthy of pursuit, but I’ve never seen a successful startup not conduct additional equity issuance along the way.
I am in FULL support of giving YFI to Core Dev’s. I have a tremendous amount of respect and gratitude for each and every one of them. Moreover, I hold all Designers, Researchers and Content creators in the same light.
However, I do not agree with minting more YFI.
I have just read and voted ‘FOR’ a proposal that outlines all YFI rewards be redirected to buying back YFI. I would amend the above proposal to allow this market bought YFI to be redistributed to the Core team.
I simply feel that allowing minting of any kind sets president that opens the doors to future abuse.
I am still a proponent of burning the keys.
With the buy back policy, I believe there will be more than enough YFI to be redistributed.
Price fixes any supply concerns and this approach aligns incentives on all sides.
Revenue will fix itself when v2 launches.
The lacklustre in rewards imo has simply been people withdrawing to purse yield elsewhere.
Opacity around v2 capability with respect to yield (while understandable) is also not helping.
So to reiterate. v2 launch = clarity on capability = more excitement = more participation = more revenue for yearn = more YFI bought = YFI price up = more value for Core team AND holders.
I agree
We moving in the right direction:
Agree completely. Thank you for your comments
For me, this proposal is marred by two flaws:
Andre has rejected previous attempts by the community to gift or compensate him for his efforts. Absent a statement from him, it seems reasonable to expect the same outcome would happen again.
Moreover, there is a question of how incentives are structured for fair long term compensation. Would JPM hire the current dev team and compensate them handsomely? Maybe. Would they let the team define their own incentive structure? Obviously not. They would be vested over time and based on milestones or similar objective criteria. Some here dislike that idea, but a carte blanche approach has a high risk in case a team member pulls a Gi***r.
Let’s see how the buyback plan goes first. But I just want to highlight few points about this:
The proposal is actually not a bad idea. If no other plan can fairly compensate the core devs, then we need to look into this option.
@undefinedza comment here is very true and challenging one. But maybe we could workaround that by communicating it properly:
There is another point which I don’t know if it’s possible: Is it doable to mint 1k YFI then introduce some mechanism in the future to burn up to 1k YFI? In this way the 30K cap will hold true most of the time, with some capital reallocation mechanism, if needed.
I really like the idea if giving more to the team. But minting tokens is going to be seen very poorly in the general ecosystem.
Some amount of people, I don’t know how many, are most certainly going to take on the opinion that, “the core team minted themselves tokens, and they did it once, so they can do it again”…
I see minting new tokens as a bad publicity move, but rewarding the devs as essential.
Thanks for putting this forward, but I’m strongly against this proposal. Minting additional YFI tokens of any number is a very bad idea for the president it sets . If a ‘one off’ minting of tokens takes place it would signal to the market it could happen again and again. The value of holding the YFI token would evaporate. I’d have to reconsider my position if this passes.
Buy back and build is a much better option for giving rewards to developers which I firmly agree with.
I don’t think this is wise, after all, it opens the door to even more dilution. The ‘equity’ part should be fixed (for ever), no inflation. I do agree part of the yield or ‘cash flows’ (or part of the future buy back) should be labeled for developers.
Nah, this is not the right route. Buy back and build makes more sense and is more credible.
Great arguments and thoughts on how the YFI ecosystem should be focused on developers, and you are absolutely right. BUT there are other ways to find $ and incentivize your and everyone’s work.
*adding more fees
*distributing profits to developers funds
*going after big holders for grants
*and we can think of more ways to get that $
But increasing the supply would do more long-term damage to YFI ecosystem because this could be happening again, and again, and again.
I agree with the final goal of this proposal, but not with minting more tokens. 30k fixed supply is a well-established characteristic of $YFI.
Economically speaking, I don’t know. And won’t argue about it. I’m more concerned about the negative hit in Yearn’s Community that minting new $YFI will have. We must never forget that one of Yearn’s strongest pillars is the community.
Instead, I strongly support the BABY proposal.
Personally I don’t feel strongly that the exact hardcapped number has to be maintained but I know that the psychology of others is different and think there are better ways of paying our devs. I think even a system that requires a tribute of YFI tokens that must go to the core team would be better received in general than minting more. That being said it’s not like the mint function was killed now and if it grows the community and rewards the builders I’m actually for that and discussing that. But this way seems suboptimal unless it was fleshed out more and ironically included minting even more YFI. Or had a vesting period to encourage people to consistently participate in governance that way it couldn’t be seen as the devs and the largest token holders pushed this idea down everyone’s throat. But not paying our team would be egregious if we were a regular corporation and at least in my opinion we are trying to retain the best parts of those systems and structures and build onto them and improve them. Also I own less than one token as I market bought it from Coinbase, but I really think that we can collectively find a way to incentivize the builders without risking any undue criticism and see this proposal as suboptimal.