Appreciate your points and will counter simply:
This won’t be set in stone forever, we will keep improving it.
Not everybody will agree with logo, we can put forth a few options for voting soon! 
Exactly, we have a working product with over $1B TVL, we should just fix the current problems (no centralized knowledge base, no stats on the yearn website, separation between protocol website and gov website) and polish it then think about re-design of the whole thing after that. And for that we can allocate a bit of the treasury for a small design studio or a few freelancers. Maybe use your version as a working base.
It sounds to me like @uhmpeps wants his version to go up live regardless and his defense is that he can improve on it whenever.
I can do it, not some design studio with no skin in the game. I will always iterate faster.
You are mostly correct! I will improve it not just whenever, but continually
This is the iterative method
Still against this “my way or the highway” approach.
I agree with your point regarding wording and will use neutral voting option language from now on - appreciate your lenience on that this time! Can’t change voting options after 5 mins.
No skin in the game haha?
Sorry but I’ll hire studios like https://www.madebysix.com anyday instead of a freelancer. Unless that freelancer is a guy like Mike Sullivan https://www.mister.studio/
Being able to take criticism is a quality that unfortunately too few people have in this field…
I see no problem with Andre’s current iteration personally and I think any new concept being pushed out better be an entirely new concept rather than a reskin.
Did they or did they not farm and or buy YFI, if not, then that’s not skin in the game.
It’s quite simple.
It’s also somewhat concerning to see you perceive an inability to take criticism when that’s literally been my job description for the past week when developing this in collaboration with the community.
Then you haven’t been involved closely enough.
I have and built a great solution to a pressing need in record time.
Disagree on entirely new concept for reasons again, explained previously.
It must fit the existing workflow and development style in order to not hinder or roadblock the current fast pace of development and innovation.
I’m just saying that there is people out there that would do a much better job at thinking about rebranding and improving the Yearn website that me, you, or any other freelancer. Do you really think that Mstable would leave their entire branding to be done by someone who just happened to follow the project and farm their token? Probably not. This feels rushed, that’s my feeling. And there’s a lot of negative energy in the way you are pushing this vote and thread.
There will always be better @WrongNebula
And we can always be better, every day.
Regardless of Skin in the Game or not, it’s also the professionalism in the way the job is being done.
Again you’re emphasizing a lot on the speed you shipped/can ship and that’s commendable really but at the same time it is not the best reason imo.
I agree with WrongNebula here that there is a lot of Negative energy here with your wordings in this thread and the vote.
Regarding vote wording, was having some fun with it mixed up with the serious part of having delivered the work however will keep it neutral in future.
You can probably understand and appreciate my position and enthusiasm having worked on this night and day since Tuesday to deliver for Yearn.
I say put it live, let’s continue to improve it, I can take care of iterative improvements to UX while Andre can focus on delivering product.
This is not how any serious brand/product operate… The MVP is already live, no need to replace it now, just need a bit of improving here and there but each one voted by the community.
You’re not the only one who’s worked tirelessly for Yearn
As someone that pushed for a tokenomics change myself back in the day, I didn’t mind that it was challenged in fact I welcomed discussions after creating an initial request for comment. I did not jump into a proposal immediately. And ultimately, it lead to Substreights model which was far better than what I came up with initially.
What we’ve seen from that outcome was multiple professionals (Delphi, Gauntlet and Framework) coming together and planning out the tokenomics which is still in active discussions today.
The community chose to delay it then because there was a need to evaluate the pros/cons and the weights of our decisions.
I say we take this approach here with the web design and wait for Future Funds design to consider as well
Thank you for sharing Daryl!
Ok, that sounds reasonable.
This proposal wasn’t jumped into btw, I’ve continually shared updates and requested feedback from community members in discord and on Twitter and all the feedback has been really helpful, as well as sharing with Andre, then finally updated him last night that it’s ready and he said
“Sweet man, shall we throw it up on governance?”
At which point I asked him what to do next, and this was what he advised.
So I’ve done it all entirely in collab with community here.
Then if we want to do things the fair way let’s put a grant for a new branding/design and let three different party compete on a proposal. Problem solved…
It’s not about how much you work, or how fast, it’s also about track record. Show me some sucessful projects that you rebranded and show me the real improvement and then we can talk.