Authors: Ryan Miller, Dudesahn, Facu, Mattdw
This proposal aims to establish a standard process by which Yearn builds consensus on whether a given protocol or farm is safe to deploy user funds to. While there are no perfect ways of precisely assesssing all risks of a given farm, there are a number of heuristics available to help form a sufficient level of confidence one way or the other.
- Establish Safe Farming Committee: a list of members and Telegram group
- Provide quick and actionable feedback to strategists
- Eliminate wasted development work
- Establish risk & safety baselines from diverse set of Yearn stakeholders
Voluntary membership representing a reasonably diverse mix of Yearn stakeholders who will be responsible for issuing verdicts and concerns on whether a particular farm is safe for a Yearn strategy.
A strategist shall follow the following process steps prior to spending any development effort on a new strategy:
- Complete a Protocol Due Diligence Report on the target protocol
- Share the completed report with the Safe Farming Committee voters group for peer review and request a vote within a reasonable amount of time (e.g. 24 hours).
- Safe Farming Committee discusses amongst themselves and holds a vote (via Telegram poll).
- Vote occurs per voting rules outlined in the section below
- Vote outcome determined:
- READY: If a vote passes, then strategist is free to continue building the strategy
- NOT-READY: If vote fails, then the strategist may seek remediation opportunities with the farmed protocol to improve on any concerns before returning for another round of voting. If none are workable, then the protocol should not be considered for further development.
This process is intentionally conservative; if any voter feels unsure about farming a particular protocol they have the right to voice that concern and force further consideration.
Reference: criteria to keep in mind while voting
The rules below are merely a suggestion, and subject to change at any time per the committee membership.
- All members in the SFC group are permitted to give a READY/NOT-READY vote on whether a farm is safe to deploy user funds to.
- Votes shall be cast anonymously by default.
- Vote passes if 100% votes are READY and 4 or more votes are cast.
- Any NOT-READY voters shall cite specific reason(s) for their vote and offer remediation opportunities if possible (e.g. work with the protocol to add an additional multi-sig signer).