At this point I don’t think there’s much room to rename V1 Vaults.
Let’s focus on naming/branding V2 Vaults which will take front of stage once they’re released
Discussion on this ongoing, but IMO V2 Vaults should only exist for vanilla tokens, not active positions like yCRV (curve.fi/y LP) or crvRenWSBTC (curve.fi/sBTC LP). These positions should be taken by the underlying active Strategies attached to a Vault. For example, a wBTC yVault may allocate capital to a Strategy that takes a crvBTC position to farm yield. This makes Vaults much more of a “set-and-forget” product that serve a desire to be long/maintain exposure to a token like ETH or LINK or DAI while maximising yield on that asset. As time passes, the Vault can completely reallocate capital to new/evolving Strategies without any interaction from the user. This is not the case for V1 LP Vaults (like yyCRV or ycrvRenWSBTC) which cannot ever allocate capital outside of that very specific LP position.
If we go ahead this way, naming becomes a bit easier because V2 Vaults only exist for vanilla/unwrapped/unpositioned assets which have straight forward names and symbols.
I think the
yv prefix for Vault token symbols is worth it. Meta-vaults may adopt the plain
y prefix, and as yearn expands across the financial value chain, disambiguating token symbols will be valuable, especially as we may have different yearn products for a given asset (e.g. confusing that there’s iearn
yDAI and V1 Vault
PS: Really like the “Labs” category for products that are experimental/early-stage