Who determines how to use the funds in the DAO/multisig? Does it go up for vote every time there is a potential expense? I assume that is the case. If so, I would vote FOR as we would still have governance over those funds. But if not, I would have issues with this split.
3 Likes
It was always planned that DAO/Multisig canât spend tokens without voting. Doesnât matter how many tokens are allocated to it.
2 Likes
What is the point on voting for a distribution split if we can simply withhold those YFI or if they will not be distributed strictly under the emissions schedule? Give 100% to the Multisig/DAO and then since we are having a vote anyway, we can vote on how much to distribute, what form the distributuon takes (YFI, yCurve, aDAI), and to whom the distributions should be made.
1 Like
It will be required to have more votes for what we should do with the YFI, but I still think itâs easier to just create the YFI when itâs needed opposed to create a fixed amount now and then never changing it.
All the tokens that are created for the DAO might as well not be created at all until we have specific expenses, the only reason I can see is to get the â50k max cap memeâ, but I still prefer a âminimal necessary issuance memeâ compared to a specific supply.
If we create a arbitrary number of tokens now for the DAO, and later realize that we donât need this many or that we need more, it will just add on extra work/votes to burn, create or distribute these tokens.
Even if we get rid of the minting key and later the DAO decides that we want to increase the token supply above 50k we will still be able to do it by creating a new YFI contract and merge all tokens there, just like bitcoin could fork away the 21M max cap if enough holders agree upon it.
1 Like
I guess there was a poll up briefly that suggested 50/50 would be the right split without letting others in different time zones get their say in. YIP 30 & 31 work in tandem so they both need to pass for future inflation to take effect, Iâm just confused how 50/50 was slid in there and was widely accepted by those that were up for the 4 hours the poll was up. It wouldâve been more productive for YIP 31 to start with a lower distribution ratio like 95/5 or 75/25 then in the coming weeks have another vote on further distributing inflation to the multisig? Just my thoughts.
4 Likes
There had been discussion of 50/50 throughout the modeling proces, and the poll was thrown up to gauge sentiment before changing.
The new Gov UI was pushed really soon after and YIP-30 put on chain before too much time could be afforded for the poll. While we want to provide plenty of time for people to voice their opinion, we also need to move gov quickly to keep up with dev.
The poll was almost 100% for 50/50 after like 25 votes, so it was felt a change was fine. The thought being that allocating more to the Multisig earlier gives us more flexibility later on. We can always use Multisig funds for more incentive schemes, much more difficult to use LP funds for Multisig needs (if that became an issue down the road).
Apologies if perceived as trying to âpush it throughâ at the last minute. That was not the intent.
5 Likes
This was helpful context. Thanks
1 Like
@Substreight Would you provide additional thoughts on how you see YIP 31 working assuming it and YIP 30 were both to be approved? For example in week 1 how much YFI will be minted? Where will the 50% LP incentives go? Will there need to be a vote, and if so what are your thoughts on that?
Where will the 50% multisig YFI go? Will we need to vote to sell some? Will we need to vote to stake it in the governance contract? Will we need to vote to prevent that YFI from voting or adjust quorum numbers to account for them?
What is the timing for all these votes?
If YIP 31 passes is that a committment to distribute 50% to LPs on the emissions schedule or is it only a committment that they will be added to a fund for future distribution to LPs?
Is the expectation that if YIP 30 passes that is the end of minting, or could governance vote in 2 months to mint another 100k YFI?
If YIP 31 does not pass, what is the distribution, if any?
I know there are a lot of questions here, but as the guiding force behind these two on-chain proposals, it would be helpfu to many of us to hear from you.
Hoping we can deploy a portion straight away and have all code audited if it hasnât yet!
If YIP-30 and 31 pass LP funds will be put into a hanging state until specifics are passed on how to allocate them for reward incentives. This can be a mix between streaming incentives to various pools and products (yCRV, Bal pool, yVaults, ySwap) as well as ad hoc incentive programs similar to what SNX has proofed out. Something simple needs to be determined, proposed, and passed asap for rewards to LPs to begin again. This should be the focus of our discussion.
50% multisig funds go to multisig. We will need to vote to determine what is done with Multisig funds. The YFI in the multisig fund will not be voting.
Governance could vote again to pass another inflation schedule, but I do not see that as a major concern right now.
If YIP-30 does not pass, there is no inflation.
I wouldnât worry too much about governance proposing another inflation schedule any time soon either. The community seems pretty aligned on 50k based off the ongoing vote. I personally wanted it to be higher but will respect the vote with it being so lopsided.
Governance Pool YFI Distribution
I think a % of the YFI should be allocated to the governance pool.
Staking YF for governance is high risk, but also crucial in locking up supply in order to sustain a solid token price base.
I suggest Governance pool stakers should receive:
- Yearn Ecosystem Rewards (As per Andre): These include, but are not limited to;
- yearn.finance interest
- COMP from compound
- CRV from curve.fi
- curve.fi/y trading fees
- ytrade.finance leverage fees and liquidation bonuses
- yswap.exchange underlying system fees
- yliquidate.finance liquidation bonuses
- system dust (unassigned interest or fees)
- YFI allocation 10-25%?
5 Likes
Any excess funds not needed for marketing/audits/development in the multisig/dao could be used for direct rewards YFI holders (by vote).
So yes, I think the DAO should get at least 50% of the inflation. Itâs perhaps even better to opt for a % part to go directly to YFI stakers. Altho, that also depends on the LP pools. If we get a YFI pool of more than say 60% YFI that can simultaneously be staked, that would also benefit YFI stakers and/or holders.
I would be voting Against for this YIP, on the basis that distribution of governance to development efforts should only be in place when a proper DAO is in place, and that it is based on a priced-proposal basis instead of a split of emission stream.
The Multisig, for one, is still a very centralised identity with merely 9 members. It is unfair to only reward contributing development efforts by them but not others. Only when a proper DAO is in place, where anyone can contribute and be rewarded through developing the yearn ecosystem, should gains in governing power to development efforts .
Other than that, acknowledging development efforts through a stream of YFI to a set pool of developers would be a less inefficient incentivisation mechanism compared with a result-oriented priced-proposal system. Proposals with codes that can be directly deployed through a DAO could be submitted with price tags in YFI, where the governance could pay the proposer from a reserve derived from inflation/donation if a proposal is to be accepted. Development efforts should be better incentivised on their quality and swiftness with this approach.
2 Likes
I would support if a fixed proportion of that 50% to multisig is distributed specifically back to Andre. I am not sure if there was any follow up to those early proposals which did not pass? We need Andre incentivised and the project at present perhaps needs some strong leadership particularly through these early times.
Any community member can create a proposal on how the multisig address can use the tokens.
1 Like
Andre didnât want to be in a leadership position. He wants to build and let the yfi holders govern.
2 Likes
Iâm voting against prop 31.
I feel a 50 / 50 split is too high, 75 / 25 i would vote yes to.
1 Like
Voting against YIP 31. 50/50 split is incredibly harsh, and too much money to be allowed in direct control.
I feel making a decision to split inflation without knowing said inflation is a bad call. We have to hold on any decisions for this until a solid policy is decided, possibly with distribution taken into account as well.
1 Like
Proposal was rejected, 42.28% for, 57.71% against, 73.42% quorum.