I completely agree that when we consider the proposal for Emission model, A new whale who have large portion of stablecoins may step in suddenly to vote FOR the proposals which are having huge emission of YFI by simply entering into BPT (98% yCRV/2% YFI) and take advantage of it with no interest for the benefit of Protocol and YFI holders in long term.
Right now it is best to give chance to vote for those who have earned YFI till now by taking large smart contract risks.
I agree that as of now allow voting for who have YFI only.
After completion of proposal for Emission model then we can think about whether BPT and YFI holders can vote or not and if Yes then at what proportion and all.
However i think it important to integrate staking to vote with rewards. Otherwise there is clear risk of choosing one over the other. Or there becoming a resentment that those voting incur added transaction cost (moving between contracts to vote/receive reward) or not receiving rewards at all.
If we pass the proposal for YFI only voting then if people who buy YFI more to manipulate the voting to increase YFI means they stab themselves with . They ultimately decreasing their value by diluting more.
But it is not in the case of BPT pool (98% yCRV, 2% YFI) consists large portion of stablecoins and they donāt much exposed to YFI at all or negligible.
So Voting rights transferring to YFI holders is atmost important now to pass perfect proposal for Emission model.
Are we sure all these boogeymen we imagine are around the corner are there? Asking about both sides. Wouldnāt a compromise someone satisfy both sides?
Iām not implying that anyone should vote no on 10, just that this should be a short term change while this continues to be discussed.
Since this is temporary measure, it would be possible to vote on using YFI only; meanwhile using BPT with vote weights tied to the proportion of YFI, can be discussed in a separate proposal after YIP 10 is concluded.
See previous poll:
Poll choice B: Both YFI and BPT tokens (vote weights based on pooled YFI amounts)
Current BPT holders have a larger proportion of YFI rewards, they would already be voting using pool#3, FWIW there are many others who are holding onto YFI governance tokens, rather than āselling their votesā right away, and therefore are better aligned imo
This is not true, liquidity providers from pool#1 and pool#2 together have a larger portion of the YFI rewards. BPT from pool#3 are the only ones that can vote. So they are the only ones who matter atm.
Ah I could be blindsided, but I feel like this is the natural progression of YFI-based voting (since LPs in pool#1 and pool#2 also receives a proportional amount of YFI rewards as pool#3)
The fact that itās far more inclusionary, likewise to have all 3 pools to have a say in governance, ie. being able to to vote on proposals with their YFI rewards.
Currently, BPT holders of outside of the governance pool canāt vote, and moreover some are literally throwing their votes away by selling out to the market.
There are lots of people/fund (non YFI owners) that already have a large amount of stable coins. They can become large BPT holders with very little cost to them (only 2% YFI). However, if YFI is used to vote, they need to actually buy the YFI, hence more skin in the game.
I agree with this as a short term solution but I think have input from other defi products is important. yearn and YFI are built on top of these protocols and giving their members a voice in yearn makes space for cross-protocol collaboration will increase integrations and yields for YFI holders in the long run.
We should add more third party stake holders to governance process but cap their total below majority required to pass a vote so some YFI holders must always be in agreement.
. They ultimately decreasing their value by diluting more.