You stake – you farm. After that it’s up to you if you want to dump YFI or participate in voting.
They could always form a coalition, like the whale group we saw forming. I imagine that we could implement delegate voting at some point to facilitate this. (Liquidity Providers United)
Yup I understand. I’m fine with making the percentage smaller, even much smaller. But I think there’s value in signaling that the community values diverse viewpoints and voices.
FWIW, I’m not a large LP by any means.
I mentioned it somewhere, to iterate:
There is discussion if people should be able to vote with LP tokens but from different pools, e.g. 80/20 YFI/yCRV. I am up for props where YFI takes significant percentage of the pool.
The original intent of yEarn as I understand it, is to farm intelligently. Ie. From multiple sources at once.
I therefore think it would go against the founding intent to vote purely with YFI.
I therefore would propose the current voting format is not incorrect but rather just one option. That is to say, to add further staking contracts to the voting mechanism.
Thinking beyond YFI rewards, those wanting to vote demonstrate resonance with the original intent by locking a little FYI with something else to receive a whitelisted voting token. That is to say;
Where pools are defined by a token yEarn can use to generate fees plus a percentage of YFI. The output token (Eg. BPT) is then whitelisted for voting.
I also don’t see why we can’t have pools with 2%, 5%, 10% or higher staking of YFI and all able to use their respective whitelisted output tokens to vote.
% of YFI allocation has imo little to do with commitment and much to do with risk tolerance. Multiple lanes on a freeway, each heading to the same destination, some just a little faster than others.
Problem with yfi-small-percentage pools is that people are effectively voting with stablecoins. Some members consider this bad and would like voters to be fullly/more committed to YFI.
i think this is key.
we can accept BPT vote…
but only based the pool’s YFI % . IE: 2% * BPT at this moment.
So the conclusion is , vote based on weight :
YFI = 1
BPT = 0.02
This is a very interesting solution if we are thinking about granting votes to liquidity providers.
How about a hybrid solution. One of the key concepts for yearn was the yCRV pools and we should make sure that the incentive to maintain liquidity is there. What if the voting structure was:
- Must hold 1000 BPT in yCRV pool.
- Votes are counted based on the total YFI that you hold (YFI vote = 1, BPT vote = 0.02)
The incentive for maintaining liquidity in those pools is already YFI. This being the case, why just not vote with that YFI? I don’t get why this is becoming such an issue to be honest.
Everyone should get a right to governance.
Everyone that participates (offers liquidity) to the system already should (in theory) have the right to governance.
Let’s not forget that the YFI token was introduced as the governance token.
The only way to acquire the token in the beginning was from pool#1, by staking yCRV tokens, this means you had to provide liquidity first.
Pool#2 was introduced right after as a way to offer YFI liquidity. Now, this is the first time a person could actually buy the token. But let’s not forget, for you to be able to put liquidity into pool#2 you must had mined by providing liquidity to pool#1
This is the first time individuals were able to buy YFI, and they were buying from liquidity providers that were giving up on their governance rights, because they are now selling these tokens in this pool.
Finally we had pool#3 that was created in order for people to vote in the first two proposals that were up. This was needed because of a technical limitation on the first two smart contracts that were distributing YFI.
In other words, YFI was always meant to be the governance token, liquidity providers were the only ones that ever created YFI. Everyone that participates in the system has the right to governance.
You participate to mine governance tokens so you can gain that right. It is up to each individual to decide if they want to keep that right or not.
@Mr_Sadim you can say that YFI is governance tokens, YFI value isn’t just about governance, it’s more about ownership of the yearn ecosystem.
But clearly the current governance token is 98%ycrv/2% YFI. For that to shift, those voters would need to approve it.
I like reading this proposal, as it’s straightforward enough for voters to get behind. A glance at the polls says there is a favorable pattern (for those on the fence, poll closes in ~2 days); and like other proposals pending more discussion.
For when the poll ends, would like @criptodee / mods to amend the stances with the following suggestion
Then next steps should be to begin a draft for submission to get this moved along on the YIPS framework:
And, review the following:
YIP 0: YIP Purpose and Guidelines
propose > discuss > codify (draft YIPS) > vote > conclude > execute
I totally agree that we most likely have three positions that have some support, as you wrote. I still do not understand how we can make such a vote on-chain (since any vote with two options will be irrelevant, since it will combine two positions in one option), but we can definitely change the poll for three options at least here, on forum.
I created a new poll (in the first post) where I tried to display all positions.
I think the most popular positions at the moment should be “vote only YFI”, “vote 80% YFI / 20% BPT” and “leave it as is”, but let’s vote together and two positions that get more votes in two days will be voted onchain.
This thread is summarized and moved to on-chain voting:
Keep your votes incoming!