You don’t have to like the CRV tokenomics, but you should recognize that it has unique design features that could have big implications for how yearn will evolve. It is one of the only token I know of that shares the profits it generates directly back to the governance participants. And it reserves that benefit for long term stakeholders (only token holders who time lock their tokens up to 4 years, with higher priority given to longer locks). This means that, over the long term and given Curve continues growing, it will become less profitable to farm it and dump it, and more profitable to become a long term stake holder. I expect other apps to implement designs that prioritize long term stake holders because this helps ensure their longevity. In an ecosystem where liquidity comes and goes on a whim, everyone needs to build their moat. That is to say, yearn will probably need to adopt a long term vested interest strategy toward the apps it interacts with in order to continue delivering strong returns.
Collecting rent is not very innovative.
Agree, and that includes assessing other stablecoin AMMs like Swerve and Shell and/or building its own stablecoin-optimized AMM thereby eliminating rent and minimizing governance risk.
A member of a community predicated on composability has NIH syndrome. Fresh
What happens if CRV drops down to a penny? In other words, it is WAY too risky to hold onto these highly-speculative tokens. Hence, dumping them for an immediate profit makes the most sense. Maybe we should have two kinds of vaults for people who want the immediate yield versus those that want to hold for the long-term gain. However, these vaults should only use tokens that are battle-tested like SNX, COMP, MKR, etc. Also, on the topic of AMMs I came across a radical new type of AMM that I think Yearn should look at either using or at the very least taking some of their good ideas and implementing it in our own future AMM. Read the whitepaper it is interesting: https://cofix.io/doc/CoFiX_White_Paper.pdf
Rockin, totally agree with this. Thanks for the link!
I think with V2 a portion of rewards could be set aside into a Treasury type pool. The size and speed at which this grows can be voted upon with a simple vote.
All reward can’t be set aside as it takes away from the compoundig nature of the vaults.
I like this idea but I don’t think it needs to be all or nothing
Agree. I prefer two different Vault subcategories that are optional for the end user.
- Instant Yield Vaults
- Gov Token Accumulation Vaults
It’s really an option that can allow for Yearn’s established goodwill to continue and expand over the long term.
I loved the idea and the vision behind it.
At the same time, the other side of the argument by @DegenTec is also true. And the idea of keeping it as an option (in two different strategies) is a very fair point (if possible).
But I would like to emphasis on the importance of the above quote. If the vision done right, this will not only have altruistic impact to the ecosystem as explained by @redarmanino, but also will add value to Yearn’s vault strategies. How? If we could influence the protocols that we depend on, then we could streamline them in a way that provides highest value/yield to the vaults. In other words, we could reduce protocol frictions from completing in their own silos, and tweak them to fit into a bigger picture as we see fit.
The end goal shall always be the same: Increasing and sustaining the yield.
This way everyone is winning, builders and investors.
Edit: I’ve just read this post and I think it is a good reference for the political side. specially @dudesahn response.
The instant yields can even piggy-back on the GTA vaults.
IY vaults make regular withdrawals from GTA vaults and sell the governance tokens.