My yCRV stablecoins were in the yVault during StrategyYfii under the informed expectation they would be earning CRV. I absolutely want the CRV I was promised.
And, I want the spirit of this proposal to move forward. Hell yeah I want to boost our yVault generation by 2.5x and for YFI holders to have a major stake in Curve governance.
I think we can do both: give early LPs their CRV and pass this proposal (with modification):
Why not pass this proposal, take all the CRV, vote-lock them, boost our CRV generation, and then use the first unlocked CRV we earn to pay all early LPs 100% of their earned CRV.
Win-win. Early LPs have to wait a bit to get their CRV and itās not exactly what they expected, but itās even better since itās 100% vested. And we get to pass this proposal.
Update: as this vote is already running it canāt be modified. If it passes, we could make a new proposal to pay back LPs as Iāve described. Or with a normal allocation of vested vs unvested if thatās preferable.
While I like the sentiment of the suggestion by @tracheopteryx it would be susceptible to gaming via entry timing, i.e. current vault investors can leave when the earning period for early LPs starts and wait to return only after it ends, thus gaining at the expense of those who stay in the vault.
Good point. Could we mitigate this by repaying the early LPs with a % of new CRV instead?
If our total CRV rewards will be 2.5 the current amount, perhaps leave the rewards as they are now for current LPs and give the extra 1.5% to payout prior StrategyYfii LPs. Some might leave to wait for the higher rewards, but depending on the early LP payout time frame, probably not a significant amount.
Iām not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I did want to consolidate some info here. It seems that the belief that CRV would be awarded to stakers was also taken aboard by Curve representatives. Here is a post I found from Kendrick Llama in the Curve discord from Aug. 1.
Kendrick Llama08/01/2020
And does that influence future crv distribution @Kendrick Llama ?
@Nemo you will still get CRV from it, Andre confirmed
I recognize that this YIP is going to pass anyway, but I sincerely hope we have some sort of contingency plan for when people come asking for their CRV, or barring that, a good DeFi lawyer on speed dial.
Nothing was promised. If anything the only thing that was promised was that you might lose everything if you put your money into the vault and that most should ā in fact ā not put anything in.
People should feel fortunate that the extreme risk they took didnāt hurt them badly and that Andreās code held up, let alone be trying to grasp on straws of prior promises.
Itās been clear that governance would decide everything. Doesnāt matter what someone from CRV said in a discord chat 3 weeks ago. Even if Andre himself tweeted about it, it wouldnāt mean anything. He isnāt the owner of yFI, no one is. Heās a guy who codes for the organization. The on-chain vote decides everything.
What about the official twitter account ? I guess every new announcement should come with a big warning that reads āSubject to YFI owners not changing their mind after and decide to bend you overā.
Looks like SmartContract risk is the least of the problems with this project.
EDiT: fixed the quote I had previously quoted the wrong paragraph.
Is there a reason why this poll came so quickly? Why is the timeframe for voting so short?
I still donāt see any arguments for; There are multiple sources of a social contract that show evidence LPs could reasonably expect to receive their CRV. I also do not understand why a decision is being made so hastily when it seems like other more innovative options have not been explored. I fear this is a PR nightmare waiting to happen all because this proposal has gone from an idea 2 days ago to within 24 hours of being voted in.
What about the official twitter account ? I guess every new announcement should come with a big warning that reads āSubject to YFI owners not changing their mind after and decide to bend you overā.
You keep saying that individual stakers are entitled to CRV but they are not and that is by design.
The hangup you are having is that yearn is targeted to its YFI token holders. Every-single-thing-yearn-does-provides-revenue-for-the-YFI-holders. Non-YFI holders can also benefit from using these services but they are not the ones it is designed for.
I canāt tell if this is a serious question or if it is intended to be ironic. Of COURSE people are going to sue the DAO. They are going to sue the DAO as soon as there is enough money involved. And IF there is enough money involved here then yes, we should definitely expect lawyers to be in here like sharks coming for chum. But beyond the legal issue, what we have done here is profoundly shitty, and I am ashamed to be part of it.
Whats the difference between YFIās treasury and Kyberās treasury? Nothing. Both of them provide crypto rewards to their token holders. Just like YFI non-KNC token holders are still allowed to use their services.
So why would Kyber give away ETH to non-token holders? It makes no sense. Iām 100% behind you if you can provide evidence that non-YFI token holders are eligible for CRV.
DId you took the time to read the entire thread ?
preCRV LP were promised CRV when they were released. (https://twitter.com/iearnfinance/status/1294130302395322368)
Now YFI governance is voting to keep these 567k CRV for them to boost the futur LP. (preCRV LP could be different then postCRV)
This is stealing CRV but I guess YFI governance voted for that. Really bad for YFI reputation from my point of view. Hopefully no big preCRV LP will try to sue the YFI governance or attack it.