**[Proposal]** Developer Incentives

Why not set up a limited time core dev donation fund? I’d gladly donate .1 YFI and so would many others. Much better than minting new tokens.


I am strongly against minting new tokens. Like many have mentioned above, it sets a bad precedent. It would damage the reputation of yearn after having already voted to burn the minting keys.

Additionally, changing the already mentally anchored, round number of 30,000 tokens to the seemingly unusual/random number of 31,000 tokens is terrible optics.

Should we reward and incentivize the devs? Absolutely. Reward them from the income the protocol produces. Isn’t that how it is already set up? Aren’t they are already getting paid in yUSD (except Andre, but that’s a different story). They can choose to do what they want with their salary. If they want to buy YFI with their yUSD, they have the freedom to do that. You could argue they should be paid in YFI instead of yUSD, but that would just mean that the protocol would be the one to buy the YFI from income the protocol produces.

The real questions that need to be dealt with are:

  1. Are the devs adequately compensated?
  2. In what “currency” do the devs want to be compensated? yUSD, YFI, etc.?

If no on #1, then raise the salaries and grants.
If YFI on #2, then use the fees already accruing to the protocol to buy back YFI on the open market. (This is exactly what the other proposal suggests.)


Yes agreed! Lets not print more yfi. But divert a considerable amount of revenue to the developers.

I support this.

Let’s share the wealth with the builders that even make this project work in the first place.

Happy developers not stressed about operations costs > 30k supply meme

If you are a long term holder of YFI I don’t see how you can vote against this.

Look at AAVE and UNI they are building their treasure chests of funds so that they can be a long-term sustainable quality project.

There is a middle ground here, but when our guys say they need something lets hear them out and do what we can to help. Building decentralized apps seems very stressful.

EDIT: I would also be willing to donate 10% of my current YFI holding to a dev fund if this doesn’t pass


I dont see what is wrong with minting new tokens and burning the keys right after?
However, do we really want to mint new YFI + redirect all the fees to operations? IMO it’s one or the other

We should figure out the best way to setup the dev fund. MInting more yfi out of thin air might hurt everyone(including the devs we are trying to help). Better to divert fees from yearn ecosystem to fill up a dev fund and use that for compensation?


Use buybacks to distribute yearn to devs / pay them more out of the treasury.

I am against minting new yfi since it’s already been so ingrained that there will only be 30000. There are other ways to compensate the developers such as using revenues to buy back yfi and pay to developers as stated above in many posts.


I would vote FOR and I agree we should not be selfish … investing in YFI is an ecosystem investment and I would be happy to invest some of that wealth into the YFI dev’s I do believe it as an investment in a long-term future.

It would be smart to make some sort of a DEV fund with minted YFI in epocs (Of 6 mohnts±) … then also have a build-in clear idea for devs that build protocols that then instead of getting paid by TX fees that will be paid by grants?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.