Would like to see a discussion for polling consensus on this proposal on the time lock (voteLock) for staking on yGov Pools, using yCrv BPT or YFI:
Those who have voted in the last ~3 days cannot move those staked tokens on both yGov pools. This situation inevitably creates a positive feedback loop for voter participation through governance, either via voting on or creating proposals.
The reasoning in having a proposal for extending the timelock is that:
non-voters with smaller holdings might be abstaining their votes, which is wasteful if the minimum quorum of more than 33% of staked yGov need to be met. Similarly coupled with a longer voting window on proposals, does help in improving voters turnout rates.
Another way to wrap your head around this issue: unless voting participants are planning on giving up the fee rewards alpha; in the near term, voters above the threshold of 1.000 BPT will continue to stake using their YFI rewards in pool #4 or in the case of smaller holders on other pools, which increases the price floor.
Incentivizing smaller holders
Lowered entry requirements of minimum BPT staked for collecting rewards can have the same effect, see related discussion on incentivizing smaller holders to be rewarded for voting participation
(note that anyone can vote on proposals, with a balance of above 0 BPT currently):
Whereas maintaining an Against vote, it is clear that both rational voters and non-voters alike will freely utilize claimed YFI rewards to stake for yield on Pool #1 - #3 (in the case of active voters staking in Pool #4, after a short period of waiting for 3 days)
While a portion of claimed YFI rewards are being sold with no restrictions at market using current Pools #1 - #3. Price will stabilize in the long run if Prop 0 is passed.
In the case where Prop 0 is not passed or likely re-tabled, and supply remains capped @ 30k till rewards run out, that would defeat the purpose of decentralizing the protocol, although most would continue to pool their YFI tokens with Balancer pools; impermanent loss (IL) might deter even the most determined, since IL reveals itself as ‘permanent losses’ at those higher prices and pool ratios.
Personally I have no qualms, having the current 3-days time lock to stay, however I would like to discuss the merits of a proposed longer timelock of 7-10 days, as opposed to reducing timelock to less than 3 days.
We welcome your feedback!