Really good idea. Using YFI tokens only for voting. Applies trade-offs in decision making for YFI holders in terms of whether to liquidate YFI tokens to crystallize rewards vs holding YFI tokens to exercise governance.
Governance comes with a cost. It is not a risk-free asset that is distributed to stablecoin holders & pool participants.
That opportunity cost helps support the price of YFI. Electing not to liquidate YFI tokens to preserve governance rights.
Strongly agree with @milkyklim and @Globallager here and that we should transfer voting from Pool 3 to Pool 4, or at least strongly weight towards Pool 4.
Is this the canonical thread for the YFI vote topic or is there some other one we should signal our preference in?
Agree with this. Even though other pool (#1 #2) contributors donāt get the pool#4 rewards at least they will get some voting rights. Which is a lot better than not being able to vote at all.
Is this the canonical thread for the YFI vote topic or is there some other one we should signal our preference in?
This one has voting attached ā letās consider it canonical.
IMO how the poll is worded is a little vague though. There should actually be 3 options which will help to craft the final proposal:
A. vote with only YFI tokens
B: vote with YFI and BPT tokens
C: keep the status quo (only BPT)
Given these new options, I would vote for B (instead of A in the current options). If B looks like itās winning, we can figure out the proportions in this thread.
If @cp287 agrees, maybe we can update the poll in the description?
BPT holders already have the incentive of getting YFI tokens, they could be dumping them right after mining it and not aligned with what is best for the protocol. They are already being rewarded for their risks. YFI token holders are the ones that show long term commitment to the protocol, not liquidity providers.
I think liquidity providers should have a voice. Their activities are providing the fee rewards for YFI holders after all. But I think the weight BPT votes carry should be a small percentage (20%?) of the YFI votes.
Iām not sure I agree with this. Liquidity providers are mining YFI tokens, that means they already have right to governance if they want.
Thatās true, but as emissions decrease and the pool gets larger, the amount of YFI they earn isnāt going to be significant from a governance standpoint relative to existing YFI holders.
More on @Mr_Sadim side than @criptodee.
You stake ā you farm. After that itās 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. Iām fine with making the percentage smaller, even much smaller. But I think thereās value in signaling that the community values diverse viewpoints and voices.
FWIW, Iām 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 donāt see why we canāt 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 voteā¦
but only based the poolās 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:
The incentive for maintaining liquidity in those pools is already YFI. This being the case, why just not vote with that YFI? I donāt get why this is becoming such an issue to be honest.
Everyone should get a right to governance.