**[Proposal]** Developer Incentives

Agreed. I have now exit. Wish the ecosystem all the very best. Trend is your friend and the trend I have observed is the inability for the YFI project to detach itself from lord and saviour Andre and find it’s own path. Getting bogged down in governance forums that have no actual implementation is a recurring theme.

I have seen the majority of discussions and votes revolve around increasing salaries, increasing strategist rewards, minting YFI to lump sum Andre and everything in between. And yet amidst all this, the yearn ecosystem is not making enough money to pay out of performance cashflows. At what point do we have a performance issue rather than a funding issue. Focus on a few high value vaults that everyone wants to use and deliver them. Stop twiddling the YFI token and build the damn product. Until that happens, wading through every man and his dogs opinion will lead to apathy (i’m so apathetic i’m out now unfortunately, I had such conviction until now.)

I should add, given the minting proposal that was onchain voted was not implemented, it highlights how little transparency on what HAS been implemented we have. I was of the opinion this was in place and to find out it has not even been coded in is hard to hear. What was the point of that vote?

All the best folks, I hope it plays out well for you.


How is being a good builder relevant to whether Dev Capture is taking place. The point is that the votes here are meaningless. The devs ignore the votes, even when it is something very significant like a vote to burn the mint keys. Being good deva doesn’t mean they haven’t captured the protocol and are now operating with zero interest in governance votes.

Absolutely you can. You can replace me and every other community member who has been here since the yield farming days. Replace us with Wall Street whales and see how much Andre loves them.

That seems to be the devs’ attitude to those of us who have been here since the beginning: We are replaceable and they aren’t. But you know, Andre isn’t the only good dev. And guess what? Stani and Kain haven’t been shit talking their communities.


A sustainable amendment is needed for the backbone - yearn.finance. Incentives for devs are an effective approach for future.

1 Like

Agreed. Just not this one, which is the absolute worse that can be done.

This proposal is so bad I’m starting to wonder if it’s a proposal or a fud psyop. Which it is either way.

1 Like

I just exited as well, but kept a fractional share for nostalgia purposes. I really did love the early days of Yearn and YFI, and the early days of yield farming YFI are among the most fun days I have had period. I also liked the early days of governance, when I thought our votes actually mattered, but to the contrary they aren’t even taken on as advice as far as I can tell. At that point you ask yourself, what is the point of holding YFI? I farmed and held it even when I was told that it “has no value”, because I thought it would be fun to participate in this project. But it isn’t fun anymore. It is just a bunch of devs doing whatever the hell the want, while taking time out to dump on us early adopters on twitter. I honestly don’t care that it pays out at the level of a Chase checking account. What I object to is that the people who participate in governance are treated like they don’t belong. That’s fine. I got the message. I’m out.


Not with Wall Street whales–with people who understand incentive alignment.

How much of AAVE and SNX do Stani and Kain own respectively? Do you think that has anything to do with it?

Just saw that @urizenus has exited. Sorry for you to leave, but glad that people with that sort of attitude towards our builders are gone. Also…the price didn’t move…go figure

Communities aren’t allowed to change their mind? That’s the whole point of governance.

If you find this worrisome, leave. These conversations are just beginning. Our devs are being extracted from by people who provide 0 value. That is much more worrisome for our long-term success than short-term meme pumps.

100% in agreement on this. I think adding more tokens risks undermining the voting process and will be belittling the governance of YFI. The Baby proposal is absolutely the better alternative imho.

Just want to add that you guys are all great, I think it’s a polar argument but I have incredible respect for everyone working on this project.


I’m here to learn from and participate in the fundamentally incredible innovation by the yearn team. And of course, also for the long-term growth opportunity + hopefully income opportunities along the way. Fiercely strong alignment across investors/community/developers/leadership is critical for confidence in continued innovation and execution. It is extremely typical for any nascent enterprise to realize that some tweaks are needed to achieve this. Doing so and continuing to be part of and benefiting from the brilliance of yearn is absolutely worth a small dilution, so if the current vision for this ends up being the best one, I will vote for it with my stake. That said, I do understand some of the negative concerns raised. The suggestion to sequester for this purpose rather than burn the first 1000 YFI minted for wYFI seems to be a near-perfect solution and compromise…? Still, if there is a flaw with that, I support the one-time minting.


How entitled of you to tell other contributors they should leave. Not sure what gives you the right.
Let’s leave it at that, I’m now pretty sure your recent interventions on that forum are an attempt to harm yearn.finance and the community despite what you say.
I’ve voted and explained, I won’t engage further in what this is becoming. Hope people will keep common sense here. Judging from vote results, they still do.

(+ if you think you’re currently bringing value with this attitude, maybe think again).


I absolutely agree with the spirit of this proposal and believed that changes voted for previously would resolve the funding issues, but I do not agree with minting more tokens, particularly in this manner. Minting more tokens for funding sets a dangerous precedent and is not a very elegant or innovative solution. I believe almost any other approach would be better.

I used to scoff at the power of memes/narratives, but I’ve grown to respect them much more recently. The fixed cap and “fair” launch are particularly powerful memes for this project- do we want to trade them for “money printer go brrrr?”


Thank you. If someone wants to make a proposal out of that, be my guest (as I’m not sure I’m legitimate to do so).

Contributors? What have you contributed?

We have already lost talent to Hegic, Idle and Sushi, all of which provide better compensation.

I’m baffled people would rather die on the hill of pet rock supply meme than help the project thrive. Yearn has been born of selflessness, it’s time to undo the mistakes of the past and give back.

I propose: issue 666 YFI per year over 5 years starting from YFI birthday, July 17th. The terminal supply would be 33333 YFI and the initially unlocked amount would be about 333 YFI.


I think that if our devs have more tokens, our governance will lead to better/more lucrative outcomes.

How about we listen to the guy who has literally created a billion dollars for us?

1 Like

Look at this space. The projects who are investing in their teams are absolutely exploding. The projects who never adopted good token economics for their dev teams are getting left in the dust… 3% is such a small amount that could generate ungodly ROI. I want a significant CapEx so the Yearn team can go after ambitious goals and have the capital to deliver.


Then they should achieve that through using the protocol to generate the revenue. Which is what BABY is suggesting.

1 Like

0 sum mindset. Think positive sum.