On the point of the burn, I hear you, point taken. Let’s discuss it and hear the community’s wishes. I am open!
On the vote point, I’m trying to help inform you about our process but I feel it’s not getting through. There is a good process, it works, it has worked, it’s not a scam. You can verify that yourself if you dig into it. Not much more I can say on the topic.
This proposal seems popular enough. Kudos to the devs, looks like you’ll be $200M richer. Everyone else, enjoy your losses.
Such a large war chest exceeds the extravagant raises at the height of the ICO craze. Giving anyone that much money was just as irresponsible then as it is now. We have yet to see any sort of a business plan or expenses projection that would justify a $200M “budget”, even over 10 years. Furthermore, without burning the minting keys, there exists the very real possibility of dilluting every token holder’s share even more in the future.
Seeing this progression from 1,000 YFI, to 3,333 YFI, to 6,666 YFI in various proposals supported by members of the development team tells me that there’s no real plan in place, especially when there are better ways to compensate them for their work without forcing a haircut on everyone else.
It simply looks like the devs and their inner circle are pushing the boundaries to see just how much they can get before they give the community their final ultimatum (“give us this much money or we walk”).
So are we Minting and doing Buy and burn ?
Voted yes, although I, like others was originally opposed. I respect the work the team does here and look forward to seeing how this money gets deployed to bolster the future of yearn. However, I do think that a list of treasury-funded initiatives should be brought forward in more detail (i.e. a rough execution plan), prior to this proposal moving forward to a binding vote. Otherwise, the mint amount could be perceived as arbitrary and extravagant. I am happy to participate in the brainstorming on this.
Good question. If this proposal passes and gets implemented, will BABY also be implemented? (I hope not!) Could the writers of this proposal weigh in here. Hard to vote on this proposal without knowing the answer.
Thanks for putting this proposal together. I ducked out of the mint discussions after the first couple of days after hearing from @andre.cronje @banteg and some of the strategists about their experiences. The opportunity cost of contributing to Yearn is and has been ridiculously high. I believe the risk of underpaying is far greater than the risk of overpaying. There’s little benefit to building Yearn on a shoe-string budget and I think some of this expectation has come from Andre setting unreasonably high expectations with his work ethic and refusal to be paid!
Like everyone else, I would have preferred to find a way that didn’t involve minting, for example, making donations (respect to @onlylarping, @arcturus @bigba_daboom @miguel567 for trying to make this happen) and BABY, but the maths doesn’t work out.
Burning the minting key because of future dilution worries doesn’t make sense. You don’t sell call options for free because they are out-of-the-money. Further dilution will only happen if it is in the protocol’s interests because if it isn’t, YFI holders will vote “No”. There are questions around Bitcoin’s security beyond 2140 when BTC issuance ends and Ethereum hasn’t finalized its monetary policy. I don’t think we have enough information to burn the keys of a <1 year old Yearn.
I’ll give the 6,666 YFI some more thought as only heard that number today. Initial reaction is that it’s on the high side compared to what was previously being discussed, but 2/3 of it will be retained and decisions about what to do with it can be made later.
So just to help clarify this a bit further, and for anyone else who may be confused:
While technically the previous proposal and snapshot poll from @andre.cronje was only polling sentiment, and didn’t meet the quorum requirements that were in place at the time, these points aren’t as relevant as the actual point of the proposal.
If you re-read the proposal, you can see that it is simply proposing for Yearn to transition to a v2 on-chain governance, and for the first on-chain vote to be a vote about burning the keys. I think as time has passed, this proposal has shifted in our minds (as can happen!) to be a proposal that was itself saying we should burn the keys, where in fact it was merely a proposal to say “should we vote on this in the future?”. Hopefully this clears things up!
Like some others in this thread, I’m a bit uncertain about burning keys now—I get arguments that we don’t want to remove a tool from our tool chest, but also that requiring a migration to mint more might be a good thing. But I do want to make sure that it’s clear that burning the keys was never set in stone, and in fact many argued against it at the time it was proposed by Andre by claiming that we needed to follow through on our commitment in YIP 0 to print more YFI.
I fully support this proposal. Although the inflation may seem high on the surface, it’s vested over time, keeps the dev’s happy, and provides yearn with a war chest to compete with other protocols.
For those concerned about the inflation’s effect on price, the simple fact that the token has held so strong in the face of this proposal tells me that the market generally likes it. You will be equipping the best team in DeFi with ammo to build, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, retain the talent with a vested interest. More than 20% of value will be created be retaining them. It’s a no brainer.
Jose from Delphi here and I fully support this proposal. The distribution is aggressive, to be sure, but that’s how you attract the brightest minds in the space to work hard to make this a success. We are diluting passive investors in favour of contributors and this is exactly what needs to be done for YFI to continue to progress. My base case is that these developers will create far more than 22% of value over the next 4 years.
Great write up and detail. I support this proposal. I want to see YFI compete well with other projects and not be hamstrung with limited funds. Dev poaching is real and we are all in the early stages so it’s important to not be short sighted. I will support the builders 100% with my YFI on this.
I’ve updated to contract to burn the keys in case the community wants to use this version
If you guys are going to mint this many tokens, the BABY plan that cuts cash flow to investors needs to be canceled. Devs should be paid, but if both go through, it will totally screw stakeholders to a degree that I (and I suspect many others) didn’t think was even in the cards. This needs to be addressed before passing this proposal. The team must not be allowed to seize all profits + mint more tokens at the same time.
I voted yes, however, I no longer see the point of re-directing the funds bought back from the BABY proposal to the operational fund.
As far as the mint function, we should keep it. Inflation by exception to grow the protocol should always be an option. See LEND → AAVE or SNX etc. Not saying we go full zimbabwe nor am I saying we need to mint more in the future BUT we shouldn’t close that door. IF this minting is a success (via value accrued by compensated devs etc) then the stigma will be gone IF it happens again in the future.
Is Delphi in favor of passing both this and BABY simultaneously? Seems excessive
I think it’s more sustainable to agree to a moderate amount of minting preplanned or scheduled that can be voted against if there’s no need. But yearn has to grow and growth means more than who the core team is right now and those future contributors need incentives too and we can do votes or time locks or quorums to avoid hyper minting but killing the mint feature is just asking for another big debate about minting in 3 years or so.
We’re not talking about minting 1000 anymore. This is a much larger sum now. $200M is a decade of runway for even a decent sized dev team, and if the team delivers and YFI significantly appreciates we could see the treasury balloon to 500M-1B. Add on top of that the reworking of fees last year which significantly increased fees going to the protocol and the passing of BABY, and we should never see the minter needing to be used again.
I can only give you my perspective as a trader whose interest is/was accumulating YFI over time for its promising technology and future returns.
The somewhat recent failed v2 launch coupled with the ever-increasing minting discussions have left a bit of a sour taste. Whether you believe in the meme cap or not, the effect these events have had on the community and price are, in a way, permanent.
IMO, the greatest milestone YFI could have achieved was to overprice Bitcoin - it showed there’s a project that, simply put, is worth more than the “digital gold”. YFI is one of the worst current performers in both BTC/ETH ratio and USD at a point where a significant percentage of altcoins have reached and surpassed their ATHs. Yet, this 20% dilution is of no apparent worry for some.
Gentlemen, we are in the middle of a bull run! Sentiment drives value up. Yet, many YFI holders are jumping ship and those who stay are being divided.
Is YFI still worth more than 1 BTC? Would I give up 25 ETH to buy 1 YFI? Who will absorb the fresh mint on these shaky grounds? Perhaps these are also some questions people should think about.
I do agree with paying the devs, but minting this amount in the current circumstances is hardly justified.
So, mint 1/3, or 2,222 YFI for Devs… $73M at today’s 33k price. I’m guessing that’s a $1M each for 73 Devs over 5 years each… How many Devs are we talking about?
Completely agree funding is needed, but there is no clear plan only a strawman proposal. The launch of v2 and the current site, says to me… this is about Devs getting paid, and missing the overall brand and messaging. There is no clear spend plan other than a select group of devs will chose who to pay…
I spent some time and viewed the “Final Copy for Yearn V2” on Yearn Frontend site and it looks exactly like the product that was delivered… No offense to the designer, but this was off the Premium Yearn brand and neglected the most important aspect for the site- who is your customer?
As an individual investor, this plan is missing the mark and will be wishing you all well from the sidelines. I’ve reached out to @dudesahn and @tracheopteryx and they can reach out if they’d like to engage. Hope this project accomplishes the teams goals, and best of luck to all.
The buybacks help return cash flows to token holders though.
They go to the operations fund. They are asking for $200M dilution plus ALL income going forward for ops fund. Way too much without any proposed plan for spending this mass sum that is being presented as absolutely necessary to achieve success going forward. There is not really any incentive to invest in or hold YFI if this passes. With no entitlement to cash flows and massive dilution, why would hodlers want to be a part of this?
All of these proposals have been increasingly adversarial vs hodlers (1k to 3k to 6k?), with many hodlers seeming to not fully understand the value shift being proposed here and in BABY. It is laughable to suggest that $200M isn’t enough for development compensation and they need all the cash flow too. These plans do not inspire any confidence if they are not, at a minimum, paired with a mint burn to encourage fiscal responsibility.
With all of that said, include a mint burn as a compromise and I’ll get on board.