Yes could be a interesting idea but be careful in not destroying what was succesfully builded and achieved on Yearn.Finance.
it,s financially important for Yearn.Finance that YFI continues to bring back a 10 percent or more yields to holders because what will be the reason to keep holding YFI token?if there isn,t any financial benefits
Crypto people will just dump YFI even at a lost and go back to BTC a more trusted investment
it,s a must that YFI keeps a financial value for the long term success of Yearn.Finance.and that the value YFI grows as Yearn.Finance expand
Yearn.Finance still has the leadership in DeFi with the biggest brand but there is and will be a lot of competition out there with are a lot new DeFi projects
It,s better to concentrate on bringing back value to Yearn.Finance with the TVL total value locked being a key metric and treat YFI holders as YFI investors.Yes Investors!
The main problem regarding capital allocation is who define the right allocation and how to evaluate and manage every single allocations.
Together with @rzurrer we elaborated a plan for a decentralized capital and self-directed cooperative pool based on a meritocratic reputation-weighted peer-review for sharing in rewards among workers.
It works as coordination mechanism of nested DAOs that participate in a series of Multi-sigs based on the Aragon DAO framework allowing capital to be pooled and intelligently balanced across a range of different strategies.
We can use the same model with Yearn with YFI Gov as Top Dao (page 11) and a series of sub-Dao specialized in specific topics: yield farming strategies, development, marketing, and those proposed by @RyanWatkins.
For each of these, teams with relevant experience on the subject can request and obtain a mandate from the Top-Dao where the invested capital and the time period are defined.
The mechanisms that incentivize the actors to a continuous mutual review and drastically discourage behaviors that are harmful to the system have also been studied.
Find the white paper of what is described here:
We have also developed a very extensive compliance document to make everything compliant with the regulator if the governance of YFI wishes to proceed in this direction, starting from Switzerland.
Feel free to contact us for further details, we will be happy to receive any kind of feedback and to support Yearn in the implementation of this structure.
This is a terrible idea and obviously most of the people for this stand to get paid. There is a clear conflict of interest. This just opens up for corruption and mishandling of funds, and it hurts the decentralized nature of the project.
Just the fact that there is this much disagreement makes this a no-go for me. No reason to push something like this forward in current form with this much push back. Great way to potentially fracture the community early on.
I would love to see this re-submitted with formal budget / reward expectations and a definitive timeline where this would expire. We already have money being pulled from treasury to pay for expenditures, I see this proposal as essentially increasing that number to 100%, without any clear plans on how to allocate those funds.
I am all for avoiding slippery slopes and this feels like one.
This has a potential negative feedback loop; it is totally possible that incentivising change can result in a skew towards an ecosystem that is too unstable and a volatile growth curve.
Just because a proposal is passed doesn’t mean that it is necessarily best for the community. It is possible for groupthink to occur and unnecessary change can lead to many opportunity costs.
You’re viewing this as a bureaucratic company (which you have every right to do), but if you put on the start-up hat, this proposal makes a lot of sense.
Just depends which hat we want to wear.
YFI holders will be the ones who vote on how to spend the YFI treasury–we’re still receiving the dividends, just pooling our resources together instead of pocketing them separately.
Together, we are one.