(1) The “This project is in beta. Use at your own risk” statement would scare 90%+ users away. This is a very responsible statement but if $750m of assets are already in the system and if it is working then it is not really “in beta” mode. This statement is continuously going to drive some shy newcomers away trying this out.
(2) The “These docs are still being worked on” statement would scare 90%+ investors away (not necessarily a bad thing as only the investors who truly understands Yearn would invest, indirectly putting YFI on a stable upward trajectory). Still, a doc would be nice and it is non-technical , so we as a community should write a proper doc, at least explain how Yearn works.
(3) The Yearn project is a Great idea, great execution and great first mover advantage - the best (and only) yield farming protocol out there. TVL jumped 10x within one month and it is rushing to the top on Defi Pulse. Double digit gains on coinsmarketcap everyday for the past 5 days would catch some attention which is good.
(4) Still very early project with a lot of room to grow. Between coming up with some fancy new functions and reinforcing existing functions for the platform to be more secure and user friendly, the latter definitely comes first.
(5) Not enough buzz on social media, and the main site is not like crystal clear what Yearn does. IMO a little bit of marginal additional work would draw in a large user /investor crowd.
Conclusion: This is a great gem yet large part of it is buried underground with zero visibility. Make it clear to the average public users/investors what Yearn does and it will go to $100,000 within 3 months.
Agree that some of the documentation can be improved, including updating https://www.learnyearn.finance/ which is another great resource. I’m available to peer review and/or update content if the community is looking for volunteers.
I can appreciate your feedback but I think YFI has done fantastic without doing the things you’ve stated. The project is already moving at a very fast pace without being focused on “reaching 100K”. It is still very early. Andre is the only who is doing the dev work looks like so if anything maybe put in a gov proposal to get some others to do some of the work stated.
Why focus on YFI price ? Andre has stated again and again not to focus on that. Despite what Andre says, I think trying to pump YFI does not add value to the protocol, so why focus on that ?
YFI will accrue value if we get more strategies, more coding, more vaults, more value locked, etc.
As a side-note: IMHO it would be completly unethical/misleading to remove “This project is in beta”.
Sorry, I don’t agree with the reasoning: It has value locked, therefore its not in beta. People can do whatever they want (locking value) but that does not cancel out the fact that its in beta.
Although I do see your point, I think having that phrase its just a way of deterring newcomers (I don’t feel this is inherintly bad)
Why focus on YFI price ? Andre has stated again and again not to focus on that. Despite what Andre says, I think trying to pump YFI does not add value to the protocol, so why focus on that ?
YFI will accrue value if we get more strategies, more coding, more vaults, more value locked, etc.
As a side-note: IMHO it would be completly unethical/misleading to remove “This project is in beta”.
Just chiming in to echo this statement. Given the novel and untested nature of the protocol, I think it would be highly unadvisable to remove the statements currently displayed, both in the frontend UI and in the documents section. For now, I think it’s imperative we make it as clear as possible to users that yearn could still be subject to a lot of changes and that there are risks in using the protocol, I don’t think total value locked should have any impact on whether the project is considered a beta or not.
I generally think it’s too early to heavily prioritise marketing efforts and user growth, especially given the growth rhythm we’ve witnessed the past few weeks without much effort in those areas.
unless your doing a deep dive into the code you should just respect what andre calls it. its been less than 2 months live - you, myself or anyone has no right to really categorize that its “not in beta” unless theres a technical reasoning supporting it. and yes before you say it 750m locked is great - beta or not
New editor for learnyearn here. YFI is constantly changing, and we’re working as hard as we can to update content as changes are made - and to add new content!
Appreciate the offer, I’ll check back with our team and see if we have an onboarding process for volunteers.
Thanks for the feedback! IMHO YFI derives its value (in the long term) from the cash flow. the cash-flow comes from the users of the product and the community. It is very important morally and for the sake of transparency that the risks are stated. Truth and straightforwardness makes things viable in the long run. I personally would value more the input of a user than of an investor.
Of course short term we could make it pretty, remove all disclaimers, ease the on ramps and launch a marketing campaign… for YFIs sake not yearn’s sake.
(1) I do not think it should be removed. I do think each segment could have its particular disclaimers. For example:
https://yearn.finance/ EARN - Can have Risk Factor X (Solidity bug, Smart contract of all underlying protocols, risk but on the yearn side: immutable contracts and no admin keys)
While Vaults are way riskier
Saying this cannot state that it is in beta because there is 1Bil TLV is like saying to the guy screaming the house is on fire to shut up because 10 persons have gone into the house.
(2) Documentation does need a ton of work. If it scares investors then be it. There is a bit on learn yearn. I would focus in offering a better UX UI. I use several of its products and I am happy how the system is evolving but not where it is at. I had many issues, but at least I know the project is in Beta
(5) Yeah, there are many pages scattered around But I think there is organic social media engagement.
Yeah, the mac could break as it was quite new… and there are warranties and a legal system as a recourse. worst it can happen is you lost the money it cost… Here we are talking people piling their savings into unknown and
new protocols with no recourse.
Bitcoin has not had anything but organic growth for years and people had to do its own research. Do you picture yourself going into a forum in 2009 saying, nice gem this bitcoin thing. I think it needs a cooler website and some marketing. Well the whitepaper was quite clear (looks at yearn docs). In my opinion Bitcoin has little to do with yearn but since you made a citation in your comment
The “This is still in beta, use at your own risk” statement… if you really think about it, it really is just a handy convenient “Get Out of Jail Free” card. In the event when something goes wrong and the pledged $800,000,000 USD vapourise into a hacker black hole, the developer responsible can just conveniently say “Nothing to do with me mate I warned you so”.
It is actually quite irresponsible (as opposed to responsible) to host testing in a live environment, I mean, who does that?
If it is not ready, dont let it go live.
If it is ready, then dont put a “It’s a beta, risk if you dare” statement. If something goes wrong then man up and take the fall.
No other protocol does this, for good reasons as well.
But I think there is organic social media engagement.