Would it be acceptable/desirable to not issue anymore YFI and instead fund future LM/development/etc… through the issuance of a YFI-B token?
Limited voting power or lower rewards and so on.
What would be pros/cons?
I don’t think creating “2nd class citizens” is ever a good idea. Creates community imbalance imo.
6 Likes
I agree. Not a great idea.
2 Likes
I don’t like the idea of B-shares.
4 Likes
The reason Warren Buffett created brk.b shares was because 3rd party financiers were going to issue split-shares of brk.a shares through “unit trusts”. Warren Buffett didn’t like this because these 3rd party unit trusts would charge commission and fees that would reduce the returns of these shares. I don’t think YFI has these issues because we as a community could just do a “share-split” through rebranding the YFI token in smaller denominated?
1 Like
This feels extremely convoluted and confusing. I’m not a fan of this idea.
4 Likes
OP, i think this is a good idea. Rather than YFI - B. I would make CRV the continually distributed token for rewards. I dont think it needs voting power, maybe just a share of the profits of each of the platforms MINUS voting power, so very similar to YFI.
I don’t think the proposed curve platform token, that hasn’t launched, has anything to do with the yearn protocol, other than yearn happens to use Curve’s platform. I think investors in Curve aren’t going to want to set aside a separate permanent issuance for yearn users :), but it would be nice if they did…
Okay then each platform could get their own token. Such as: yearnswap token, yearnfinance token. And those tokens share in the profit and act as incentive with the intended purpose of incentivizing pools without voting rights like YFI has. The average liquidity provider will only use the YFI to sell anyway they have no interest in governing. So why not give the governing token to the people who already invested and shown interested. I am strongly in favor of, IF ANY PRINT, 100% of it going to the YFI holders through staking.