I personally don’t agree with this. You either farm or you stake.
My views are also turning towards keeping voting purely for staked YFI. On this note, why would we need gYFI?( as another token) If staking YFI that does not move from the gov contact does the same thing?
I’m not sure if this would have a deleterious effect or is even possible: would you consider making gYFI a type of ERC token that can’t be listed on exchanges? To increase the barrier of it getting into the hands of malicious actors
Edit: Related to what iTo mentions below, making gYFI a non standard ERC token (à la LinkPool which cannot be listed on standard DEXs and CEXs) could prevent a malicious actor with a lot of capital from purchasing governance power (gYFI) on an exchange and vote bombing despite not having staked any YFI for any amount of time
Would this be capped at 1? I agree with the concept, but believe increasing voting power past a certain point is not necessary, as the loss from pulling out eventually starts outweighing further gain and should be enough to serve as a deterrent. Not having diminishing returns over time however could snowball out of control with ancient ones from the deep gaining tremendous power over years.
There should be a limit on the days, years, decades that can be counted Toward this weight, or what incentive is there for newcomers to participate? The value of yfi would be affected. Maybe a 25% bonus for staking over 3 months might be acceptable. Also, does everyone start at zero days when this passes, or some people get a huge head start? It should start at zero.
Would be this retroactive, I.e. people that have been staking in gov contract and voting since a month would obtain more gYFI that people that will come back after been playing with YFI in other contracts?
How can this be manipulated by exchanges? If binance has 4K yfi but they know they will probably only need 1k for withdrawals normally they can stake the other 3k in gov until they get called and have outsize voting rights potentially? And if most yfi holders are farming it may be easy to lose control?
I really don’t think we should be creating another token unless gYFI is distributed internally within the system as a measure of time only. And all gYFI associated to a wallet burned proportionally to the withdrawn YFI.
I support any tweaks that reward YFI holders’ commitment to participate in governance, such as this. But seeing how things are unfolding, I’m wondering:
Does it make sense to merge the YFI vault with YFI governance, so YFI holders can do all three simultaneously: 1) stake to vote in governance; 2) stake to earn governance rewards; 3) earn YFI yield with the vault strategies.
Why force YFI holders to choose between the yYFI vault (yield) and governance staking (rewards)? Why not allow us to do it all—to the benefit of the token and the system?
Maybe I’m overlooking a reason why this is not a good idea. Is there a downside, perhaps it introduces more risk?