Is there any estimate on what amount we are aiming for here to fuel Yearn’s growth?
History is extremely relevant and should always be studied. There’s a reason that certain behaviors work historically and others don’t.
Why do we deserve a dividend when we spend an hour a week arguing on forums, while our devs spend a 100 hours a week writing innovative code?
2 Likes
It’s the first decentralized, public hedge fund. Your token gives you voting rights over the Yearn ecosystem.
If you can’t see the ties between Yearn and a public company, no offense, but you’re not paying attention.
1 Like
The current crop of devs are great. How many of them will still be in a year? Do you know? Does anyone?
If you don’t create a check on fund expenditure, it’s just irresponsible. Personally, I don’t think saying “you can always issue a vote to cancel it” is good enough to incentivize the very best behavior.
Also why should I hold or buy more of a token (to indirectly fund development) from which I cannot accrue any value from (or have a reasonable expectation for accruing it?
Comments like your are EXACTLY why I think value accrual should not be shut off now. Because this type of mindset will likely make it impossible to turn on again in the future.
7 Likes
I have seen the implication that value accrual for YFI will disappear if we remove GOV staking, but unless I’ve missed something this (see quote) is where “staking” your YFI will end up being rewarded? So an YFI vault for v2 (which I wish was released right now because mine is just sitting doing nothing).
Great proposal, probably would be good to have it reviewed in 6 months but not a dealbreaker for me tbh.
Are you reading what I wrote? I explicitly said once we are out of the growth stage I would re-vote for a dividend.
I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, especially when they have proven themselves to the degree our core developer team has.
So do I. That’s why I think they should get 75% of the fee income to spend with only minimal checks.
Are you reading anything I’m saying?
1 Like
You hold the token because of expectations of future cashflows/revenues. Present cashflows/revenues, if misallocated like they are now, will hurt the value of your coin.
Everything. Lol. What entitles you to 25%? You don’t provide any value other than arguing in this chat. Same to me. Why do we deserve 1/3 of what our builders get right now?
Funds flowing elsewhere don’t invalidate the P/E model. Yearn never raised any money and the protocol revenue is literally the only runway we have. Spending it on ~1% staking rewards when better options are available is as good as burning cash imo.
7 Likes
I do see two main concerns with investors here:
1. “How do we benefit from this proposal if the YFI got sold by Devs”
2. “There is no clear/formal process for allocating those funds to Devs”
Regarding #1: devs will sell enough tokens to pay for their personal matters. From all other projects, they came to contribute to yearn because they care about it. I don’t think they’ll sell most of their YFI after a pump.
Regarding #2: If we don’t have clear/formal process to pay devs, it doesn’t mean investors are more eligible for those funds. We could at least park the YFI until we have a good pay plan, but so far the devs are doing a great job.
As early investors we should not seek rent at this early stage. Yearn vision is so grand that needs a lot of focus on continuous development, just like a startup as @RyanWatkins mentioned earlier. It makes no sense to extract rent now. When Yearn reaches early maturity, then there will be a time to propose profits to investors.
I fully support this proposal. In fact many points mentions here should have been reflected earlier, but was hindered by some shot-term views.
7 Likes
OK, I’m going to stop commenting on this issue with you, but I’ll only wrap this up to say that I think this sort of viewpoint is extremely toxic.
Viewing token holders (read token buyers / non-sellers) as a speed bump / drain on the protocol is extremely myopic.
4 Likes
I’m generally for this proposal but would echo DCinvestor’s request for a time-cap. If every 6 months is too often, we could do it yearly on YFI’s anniversary. The re-vote would then also give the community a path back to the current status quo of YIP-54 if needed, with value accrual to the YFI token.
Also I’m not really clear about the rationale for this proposal beyond the discussions we’ve had for YIP-54 about how to allocate fees to incentivize growth. Is part of the motivation to address Andre’s recent post about motivating developers when all the tokens have been already given away?
If so, we should just come out and say it. Let’s address the issue and move on rather than have it come up again every few months since the YIP-54 discussion was just 2 months ago.
I personally have immense trust in the judgement of Andre and the executive team. If the executive team unanimously backs a proposal where the community one-time buys or mints YFI and just outright gives it to the most important contributors up to this point, I would vote for it without a second thought. I imagine the community would overwhelmingly support it as well.
7 Likes
They’re only a speed bump/drain when they extract value from the ecosystem instead of providing value.
By voting to forgo dividends for the forseeable future, you would be value creative, instead of extractive.
@DCinvestor is right we need improve token economic
2 Likes
That’s fair, and especially during this time, I want the team to have all of the funding it needs to grow.
I also want reasonable checks that the funds will be spent in the optimal way possible. That’s not a dig on you or any other Yearn dev. It’s from a career of watching even public servants allocate money poorly with broken incentives.
I think transparent reporting / decision making processes around fund allocation + a time cap on this proposal would be good additions.
7 Likes
The best way to align incentives is to give Yearn devs YFI tokens. Public officials make bad decisions because they are underpaid (so the jobs don’t attract smart people) and have misaligned incentives (so they don’t work for the best outcome). Let’s learn from history, like Singapore did in creating their government, which now crushes it!
1 Like
potentially overly complex idea incoming:
What if the weighting of the dividends were set to increase slightly upon completion of every 6 or 12 month time cap. Start at 100% to the team and jump down by 5% every year (or some other amount). This creates a forced transition from growth to value, but still prioritizes growth/devs over the short term and slowly ramps up investor payback over the long term.
And of course the curve/steps could be changed or adjusted at each new interval if they were seen to not be working.
6 Likes
Would consider this in the future but I think it’s trying too hard for now. A lot of unknowns need to be figured out before we set that up, i.e. target AUMs of our contracts, target markets of expansion, etc.
How exactly would YFI be bought back, and with what frequency?