I would have posted this to the Proposals category, but I’m unable to post there– so apologies if this is not appropriate for general chat.
While I know that YIP-39 is live, there are several issues I found with it. I outlined issues I found in a post here YIP-39 Discussion. I’ve modified and pasted these issues below as well.
I think one of the strangest issues here is that YIP-39 appears to have been submitted under @uhmpeps 's name without his consent. Furthermore, the YIP was also clearly thrown together hastily, which I detail below. While I like the basic idea of this proposal, I do think it was moved forward to a YIP without adequate further discussion and fleshing out here or on Discord.
I’m glad that we ultimately will be adding tokenized BTC to the vaults, but this feels incredibly forced. I think the most obvious places we can see this are errors in the YIP itself– there’s an entire paragraph that is just copy-pasted from YIP 38 and has no relevance to this YIP at all. Errors like this seem to me like the governance process isn’t being taken seriously:
However, the amount of $BAL seized is 3 times lower than protocol fees generated within a week (18k vs 60k). Therefore, I propose to keep $BALs in the multisig and count them towards operational capital, rather than writing a custom claim contract – this solution saves time and gas.
Furthermore, in the YIP it is mentioned that this would be similar to both the yCRV and yYFI vault. The strategies of these two vaults are vastly different, and the vaults are fundamentally different as well (one holds a normal ERC20 in YFI, while the other holds an LP token). Realistically, I think this strategy would be identical to only the yCRV vault– this is the current strategy that farms CRV and dumps it back– but this is very different from what will ever happen in the YFI vault, and again, makes me feel like little care was put into the YIP.
Upon receipt and sale of CRV on market, system buys either more LP-token if liquidity/pools are available, or buys renBTC or sBTC
Here, the strategy again seems to not be fully developed. Realistically, we would want to buy whatever is going to incur the least slippage– wBTC, renBTC, or sBTC. I’m not sure why they’ve left wBTC out here. People can say they don’t like it because it’s custodial, but ultimately by using the Curve sBTC pool LP tokens, we are holding ~40% wBTC. While sBTC would be ideal since we get a ~1% bonus for depositing right now since it’s so low in the pool, there would also be slippage buying relatively large amounts of sBTC from somewhere like Uniswap. Perhaps this is something that could be calculated on the fly in the strategy, but again I think it’s worth mentioning.
Ensure the new yVault is communicated to the appropriate audiences as a viable alternative to holding a non functional pet rock with no other purpose currently.
I think it would be best to keep these more professional– these are effectively the laws of our DAO, and will be looked back upon in the future, so I think it would be best to just be as clear as possible and keep opinions or jokes out of it.
Perhaps my last issue is that there is no mention of the REN/SNX/BAL rewards for the sBTC pool. While these are likely to end this upcoming Friday, it would be good for them to at least be mentioned, as we should have a plan in place for what to do with them should we receive any in the future (since we’ve had issues before with what to do with BAL rewards paid out).
Ultimately, I’m just frustrated, because these are all minor issues that would’ve been solved if the poster had just slowed down a bit or had someone like myself or @Arcturus look over the YIP before submission (we were both active on the original proposal thread with feedback). I know we would’ve been happy to proofread it or work through the actual YIP before submission.
Perhaps stranger to me is that someone else submitted it under @uhmpeps 's name before we came to a finalized consensus on the thread.
So, this perhaps brings up two issues: 1. changes that may need to be made to clear up YIP-39 (with another YIP?) and 2. YIPs being submitted in someone’s name but without a final go-ahead from that person.
Thoughts? And perhaps can the admins provide some clarity on how this YIP came to be submitted?
.