That’t false. We could easily calculate the crv for preCRV vault.
I did not join this community to steal other people’s yield. We should distribute all CRV to the LPs who provided their capital for the farm. Signaling predatory attitude that early will harm the project’s public image.
That said I would probably support another proposal that achieves that 2.5x boost using funds from less controversial sources.
Against, for ethical and PR reasons
11 Likes
No. You need value to calculate APY. The quantity is irrelevant without a price.
CRV vesting is daily so do you suggest to distribute daily ? or hold them for one year and distribute them with additional rewards?
Why are we not calculating the weight of each preCRV LP based on when they entered the vault and the total vault size. Then lock them for 1 year and after that distribute these CRV. At least you are not keeping token that should be LP tokens and you get a boost for x2.5 for 1 year. After that you will have to find other crv.
1 Like
On one hand I think that is in our best interest to be in the CRV governance system. The voting power that YFI could get from this could allow this community to boost even more the yVaults products.
However, I believe that a way less controversial way to do this would be interacting in different scales of vesting. Curve offers a range of vesting from 1week to 4 years. Why we dont get a votation on different kind of vesting portfolios and vote? ( 40% -0 days; 10% 1Week, 30%-1Month, 10%-6Month, 5%-1Year, 5%-4Years)
Redistributing the ammount that wont be helded around all the participants. Also I believe that there is technical things to be seen to organize something like this.
Also, our voting system should migrate. If this is a DAO we should try to test out more data based voting approaches not only for our investings but for our decision making process. Trying to implement a quadratic voting/funding could be interesting for a near future.
https://ethgasstation.info/blog/quadratic-funding-in-a-nutshell/
4 Likes
Great suggestions.
YIP 37 is looking like a lock (I voted for it), but perhaps a secondary YIP for the different vesting periods would be nice?
I imagine the amount of CRV needed as a goodwill gesture to the preCRV LPs is negligible, so it’s probably worth it just for PR purposes… the “protocol for the people”…
3 Likes
2 Likes
yes please. Some attempt to reward the preCRV LPs.
This controversy seems to only arise because those who deposited can see their deposits earned CRV on the side.
My question to the community is, lets create a hypothetical scenario and assume BlockFi takes users BTC deposits, converts to wBTC and then deposits into CRV’s sBTC pool and farms CRV. This is all opaque to BlockFi’s customers, so they will never know. Should BlockFi’s customers entitled to the vested CRV? Or are the only entitled to BlockFi’s APY?
If BlockFi’s customers should be entitled to it, then vote against
If BlockFi’s customers should not be entitled to it, then vote for
I am starting to lean towards the camp of voting FOR. This is because to me, if I loaned someone capital at 10% interest, and they used that loan to make 100x, im not entitled to anything other than the 10% interest originally promised.
3 Likes
There is a huge difference between your example and the actual situation. It was said to all LP that the CRV would be distributed. That’s the problem. Your example worth nothing. If you want to use that, let’s said BlockFI said that anyone that use their service will get CRV. For this reason a lot of LP move to BlockFI. When BlockFi receive the CRV they kept them. That the real issue here. A lot of LP would not necessarily have moved if they new they would not receive CRV.
1 Like
It was said to all LP that the CRV would be distributed.
Be aware that nothing is final and everything is subject to change due to the governance system. If the people will it, so be it. That said, this is the first vote with an moral dilemma and I am interested to see how it plays out.
1 Like
I’d like to point out that this proposal carries risk to YFI holders. Some commenters have the misapprehension that this only affects the pre-launch LPs in the vault. However, carrying out an action that is seen to be unethical increases PR risks and fork risk for yearn.finance. Note that even if you think this is morally acceptable, there are others who don’t, and that may be enough to create bad press. Reputations are built over time but can be lost in an instant.
It would be possible to formulate a compromise whereby vested tokens are locked for one year, producing some amount of yield boost. In that time, a claim interface can be built, which pre-launch LPs can use to claim their CRV. Tokens unclaimed after a certain period of time can be returned to the vault for yield. This plan would already represent a haircut on the pre-launch LPs since it is unlikely that CRV will be trading at current levels in a year’s time. However, this would deflect most of the potential ethical questions. Any compromise that involves taking some part of the pre-launch CRV is open to the same ethical complaints.
For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a moral argument. You’ve seen that one already in this thread. This is an argument to control reputational risk for the benefit of the yearn.finance ecosystem.
Accordingly, I believe that it is in the best interest of long-term YFI token holders to vote against this proposal.
8 Likes
yea man i am both a yfi investor and a pre launch vault user. I really don’t give a shit about the CRV tokens as i feel they will basically be worth a lot less a year from now but we REALLY need to consider this from a PR standpoint. i feel like the right thing to do here is vote against and work out a better YIP that has more options rather than just locking all the CRV up.
2 Likes
Im a former (and current) yCRV LP and I’m not a YFI holder. I think it’s very bad to keep the CRV that was promised to pre LPs. It’s probably on my best interest to have it locked, but I believe the option should be there for the ones that don’t want it locked.
I think a smart contract could be made that allows a preLP to claim the CRV or choose to delegate it to be locked for 2.5x rewards.
I would delegate mine, and others would be able to choose.
1 Like
You’re right, but if Elon Musk tweeted a competition promising 2 teslas then didn’t follow through, he MIGHT run into some problems.
1 Like
Unless BlockFi actually claimed you would also get that CRV that was farmed, like it totally happened with the official yEarn account.
no one promised anything. mind your wording
1 Like
Sure, that wasn’t really the point though, the point was that there’s a difference between Elon Musk (face of Tesla or official Tesla account even) saying something on twitter or someone else saying something.
Also you don’t need to promise, you’re right. Being “Led to believe” is usually enough.
Anyways, I see you’re actually leaning against anyways, I wasn’t directing anything at you but only to point out that people were led to believe something from someone they may have thought represented YFI.
Why wouldn’t yCRV vault holders redeem their shares if this passes? What would be the point of them holding the shares then?