Can you direct us to where you got this information from?
Depending on the level of the audit, but it could cost as much as $50,000.
I think this is a great idea. YFI is a growth company (protocol) in a growth industry. It makes little sense to be giving income earned back to token holders at this stage. Instead the earned revenue should be set aside for now and allowed to accrue, so that we are able to meet future needs with an additional option besides only minting YFI.
I see some concerns about âfor how longâ, and âblindly allocating income.â But I donât think those questions matter in terms of this proposal, because as Andre says:
So I think the proposal is basically:
âShould we begin to save fees generated by the protocol so that we can flexibly deploy them later, rather than leave ourselves with no reserves at all.â
2 Likes
Can you direct us to where you got this information from?
Yes, it was a figure quoted by Klim K (admin) in the yearn.finance Telegram group: Telegram: Contact @yearnfinance
I think it would be more useful if we can get to the original source of truth for this such as onchain records.
I donât see why there wouldnât be delegated purposes where voting is not required for spending of treasury funds.
E.g audits are basically unanimous in agreement that they need to be complete for the safety of the users and the project as a whole. Once new code is ready to be pushed for use, I donât see why we couldnât vote on a process that allows this to happen with ease.
This process could set the expectation for how this can work moving forward with other delegated purposes to allow innovation to continue to happen without roadblocks.
The proposal contains a provision for rewards to YFI holders after costs have been covered. Even if this ends up being zero today, it maintains a mechanism for holders to be rewarded in the long run. The present value of the YFI token is dependent on its expected future cash flows, not just the current ones, so this change may in fact align the interests of the protocol with those token holders who take a long-term view on the protocolâs development.
Moreover, the numerous listed companies that have never paid dividends (for example, Google/Alphabet) provide a good counterexample, since some of them have seen both shareholder activism and successful value creation.
2 Likes
I would vote to FOR. This is actually a more conservative approach compared to additional issuance of YFI. Operational expenses will be covered which is a priority for developing and auditing. Any overflow is expected to come back to stakers. And I assume that voters will still retain control over how funds will be spent.
1 Like
Agreed, there is a distinct lack of transparency in the fees charged by yearn.
I have created a thread dedicated to the disclosure of fees:
I would vote to FOR - reasons well covered by above posters
1 Like
I agree with a small percentage of it. The wording of the proposal says that all of the income goes to the operational costs and YFI stakers get nothing. I am against the latter. The original proposal YIP-14 asked for 5% which I fully agree. Also this should be a type of MOU and later on, there need to be proposals and votes for each item of expenditure.
Agree.
100% of the rewards should be used for aggressive expansion imho.
4 Likes
For. More money for development and growth without dilution is optimal. YFI holders shouldnât be too concerned with income/dividends at this stage⌠income earned should be used to develop the protocol.
1 Like
We should not detract from the benefits of holding YFI. Doing so will diminish the desire to hold it.
Instead. Look for solutions that allow for both to exist in an autonomous fashion.
Hence my proposal above.
Yes something like that is good. First I think we just need to vote on whether to stop distributing the fees and start accruing the treasury, then we can vote on how much is needed in the treasury. It will take a bit of time for the treasury to fill up in any case.
1 Like
this seems like a quick and simple way to handle this for nowâŚ
While this would need to be adjusted over the long term to ensure âoperational capitalâ as a term is not a slippery slope, in the short term this is excellent and should pass.
My thoughts:
-
This is the quickest way to cover overhead expenses for Andre and even more importantly, fund audits.
-
As a token shareholder, I do not believe we should be looking for any yield on our current $YFI holdings but instead be using that to fund the protocolâs further development and ensuring itâs robustness, which will attract more AUM and provide a positive feedback loop.
-
This will allow us to maintain our fixed cap, which is incredibly important. While it may need to be broken in the longer term (I hope not), the memetic value of our 30k hard cap is currently incredibly valuable and is what will differentiate us long term from coming competition. Once the monetary policy is changed from the 30k initial distribution, there is no going back.
7 Likes
Totally agree. Funding audits should massively increase investor confidence and thus AUM. The positive feedback loop with that is incredible, as more AUM generates more fees to fund more operational expenses.
1 Like
I agree with this in principle; however, there must be some ability to check or validate at the time of fund distribution.
i.e., there should be a vote for each distribution out of this fund to pay for operational expenses, along with a itemized breakdown of what the money is being spent on.
Also, I do agree with halting further proposals on new YFI issuance until there is an actual proposal with broad, demonstrated support.
5 Likes
I was thinking in the short term:
- Funds redirected to Treasury (controlled by multi-sig)
- Expense request by Andre sent to Treasury
- Treasury votes on approval, based on general sentiment.
While sentiment is generally hard to gauge, we are already having Andreâs reputation at stake from the actual expense request, that is enough for me if itâs just fee re-directing (and not inflation).
1 Like
I think voting on every experience is a little cumbersome. Iâd prefer to vote on a budget. Eg. A proposal by Andre & team is put forward for several items. Audits, improvement etc. For a specific period. Eg. A quarter. We debate, vote and let the treasury do the rest.
1 Like
I would be interested in a community poll that gauges whether YFI token holders would prefer to vote for every treasury expense or just vote for budgets that encompass multiple treasury expenses on a less frequent basis. I think both could work, but depends what the community prefers.
1 Like