I hope it won’t pass like it is. 22% is too much.
4 Likes
good detailed proposal with a reasonably sized mint. would support vesting of 2,222 for current contributors retroactive to start date. the challenge moving forward will be the community coming to consensus on what to use the treasury for (as well as yfi accumulated under buy back). 22% is not a lot considering the time horizon & puts in line with other protocols. think people should not get too scared by the word inflation here… this sets up yearn well long term.
8 Likes
Attach the minter burn to this and this is an easy yes vote.
3 Likes
Voting no until minter burn is attached to the proposal.
4 Likes
I am a supporter of a one-time minting to align incentives and secure the development in a very competitive environment, But I really think you need to include a guarantee that the minter will be burned!
5 Likes
Attach mint burn to this as well as a compromise imo then we can move forward.
2 Likes
Burning minter keys means that Yearn will ever be able to change the tokenomics IMO.
1 Like
I think burning the keys is actually kind of short sighted. We are in the early days of defi and tokenomics are only in the 1st inning.
First by burning the keys are we removing a function that might be useful and necessary over the long-run to make the protocol economically competitive. How many companies out there say let’s put in our charter banning the ability to sell equity (as an analogy). That seems kind of foolish.
Second, what I think you are saying hey I don’t want to get diluted, which I get, but remember any token issuance should be for something that is value accretive and provides an overall economic benefit to Yearn in excess of the minting costs. Here, the 1/3rd allocation of the treasury provides for competitive market based compensation that in the absence would lead to a brain drain and IMO a death spiral for YFI. The issuance clearly exceeds the costs.
Finally, governance will be deciding future uses of the minted tokens and whether or not there is a long-term economically accretive reason to do so further in the future. Unless you can tell me Yearn ideal tokenonics in full detail removing a potential arrow from our quiver makes no logical sense. Given many peers (if not all) have kept their minting keys, burning them doesn’t seem like anything more than a meme. Seems like a burn the witch kind of thing to me. Can anyone who supports burn provide a rational reason why burning the keys and not leaving optionality is in Yearn’s long term interest?
15 Likes
If the minter isn’t burned then ~10% extra tokens should be sufficient for coming years. Then we’ll see how it goes.
With the keys burned now we won’t be able to do this proposal and would be starving, so I guess that’s an argument why limiting optionality is bad.
Overall I’m ambivalent about burning the keys. If the keys are burned and we ever need to change the supply again (either way, e.g. we implement EIP-1559), we can migrate YFI token and add more features at the same time.
9 Likes
burning the keys is only useful if you don’t trust the multi-signers to not do an unexpected ad-hoc mint, and if that is the case then i would ask yourself why you’re holding the token to begin with. if yearn had burned keys in the summer it would be significantly limiting right now, and it’s likely yfi would have proposals pushing for migrating the token to a new contract, thus making burning the keys a moot point.
9 Likes
Or you can look at it just as raising the bar for additional mints. If an additional mint is just one multisig tx away it will always be somewhat alluring as an easy way out. If it require a completely new token then that bar is significantly higher.
If there ever was a huge overhaul (e.g. ETHLEND -> AAVE) to make YFI more than a zero value governance token then lots of more features could be included in such an update.
5 Likes
Exactly this. @YFI-Cent @ceterisparibus
Burning the minter isn’t about technically removing the ability to sell more equity, it’s about signalling that you performed your due diligence and are confident that this one time equity dilution is enough for the protocol to sustainably fund itself in the future.
The optionality would always be there in the form of a future token transition. But the non-binding poll from before should be acted upon for the sake of governance continuity.
The whole concept of a “non-binding poll” is suspect to begin with, when governance overlords can choose to ignore certain non-binding polls because they find them personally undesirable.
7 Likes
Burning the keys signals that the devs and team believe in the self sustainability of the protocol and that this mint of roughly $200M is enough runway to get there. It also signals a predictability in tokenomic’s going forward for people wanting to hold long term.
I’m assuming a migration to an entirely new token would be a larger undertaking than calling a mint function. That extra friction and difficulty is not a bad thing. If the minter was burned and things we’re so dire that an entirely new token had to be created and migrated over to, to sustain the protocol, that will probably tell us a lot about how this $200M treasury mint was spent and the sustainability of the protocol.
9 Likes
Just a clarification, we use non-binding polls to signal intent like the one currently in this proposal. We use binding-polls in snapshot for binding YIPs that are then implemented as soon as possible. It’s nice to have a signaling ability. At one point we were using snapshot for signaling (non-binding) too and that’s where the confusion came.
1 Like
I’m aware of the difference, and I’m pointing out that if non-binding polls don’t have a transparent and consistent process to lead into binding-polls, then that can be interpreted as an unfair or captured governance layer.
The non-binding poll passed and has now sunk into purgatory, with no clear signal regarding whether or not it has been rejected. This ambiguity raises a lot of questions.
By re-including the mint burn in this proposal and signaling your intent once more, you sidestep those optics entirely, still get your dilution, and add legitimacy to Yearn governance.
2 Likes
I believe burning the keys is extremely short sighted. Just 6 months after the initial signaling, we’ve already learned that keeping the keys was the correct thing to do. Defi is barely one year old. We are building a financial foundation for the future. There are far too many unknowns to throw the keys away from our future-selves.
I believe an additional YIP as has been suggested is the best way forward. We can timelock, put them behind a larger-consensus vote, create a “sacrifice” where X YFI needs to be burnt from the treasury to unlock. I’m sure there are more ideas that could be proposed.
9 Likes
They do, it’s defined in YIP-55
2 Likes
Great, so take the opportunity to include the mint burn in this proposal or unambiguously affirm that non-binding polls prior to YIP-55 are void and need to be resubmitted by the community. This tip-toeing around the actual point is suspect.
1 Like
I was initially skeptical about breaking the 30k meme, and I established a matching fund to help compensate Yearn’s development team. 10-20 YFI for Dev pool from me
However, after speaking with the community and reading many of the thoughtful posts here, I am strongly in favor of the existing proposal to mint 6,666 YFI. I am also more bullish than ever.
Yearn is one of the largest opportunities I have ever seen in a career of investing. Unfortunately the project is criminally undercapitalized, and its key personnel are inadequately aligned with the financial success many of us are betting on. Not for lack of available resources, but in preservation of a meme, a founding story, an (un)fair launch.
The 30k meme’s gotta die for Yearn to fly. Big yes to the entire proposal here. Thank you all for lighting the path.
17 Likes