Proposal 1: YFI Fee Collection

Vote live on https://ygov.finance/vote under "1"

Context:

All yEarn fees (currently $60/wk) are routed to this Vault and normalized to aDAI.

YFI represents a claim on those fees. To claim fees, YFI must be burned.

This proposal is to decide whether or not keep this mechanism the same or change it to a stake based system where those who stake YFI are entitled to a pro-rata claim on the reward pool (without having to burn YFI).

Voting Signal:

For: Continue burning YFI to claim trading fees.

Against: Stake YFI to collect trading fees staking, instead of burning.

Original Tweet:

1 Like

I’m leaning towards Against and shifting to a staking model as it feels more intuitive with other existing ecosystems.

What would the benefit of keeping burning be outside of scarcity to drive token price be?

8 Likes

I agree with Against as well. It was a dumb idea, I should never have thought of it.

8 Likes

I actually think this was a really interesting idea, specially if we have the continuous issuance model. Then we would have a similar effect to EIP1559 on yearn. Some people would want to burn their yfi to get their rewards, while others just stake to get more yfi.

That’s super interesting framing.

If continuous issuance - burning makes more sense.
if fixed supply - staking makes more sense.

2 Likes

If Proposal #0 passes, i.e. YFI continues to minted (let’s say at a lower rate)–which looks unlikely, seeing as the vote is 3:1 against as of now–the YFI burn is a good mechanism to maintain the perception that inflation is in check (even if in actuality inflation outpaces the burn, which is going to be the case initially, I suspect). Technically though, locking achieves the same effect–reduces circulating supply.

1 Like

Sometime you just want to experiment with new tokenomics design for the sake of it, for experimenting and learning how the market reacts. We all would not be here if it wasn’t for people experimenting with new things. I also think that having scarcity is a great benefit for a token in order for it to capture value.

1 Like

That all being said. I wished we could have more discussions about the possible proposals than to rush them in like we’ve been having.

2 Likes

Agreed. These two proposals are intimately connected. Burning does not make sense with a non-inflationary supply.

2 Likes

Agreed that in the future we should look to ensure all proposals have significant discussion on the forum prior to being pushed onchain. The more consensus which can be reached offchain, the better (and smoother) onchain voting will go IMO

1 Like

Can someone clarify if future protocol fees will be distributed direct to YFI holders, without needing to hold BPT or yCRV on Balancer?

Seems like this adds more barriers, I only want to hold YFI and don’t want exposure to the other assets, especially not in a 98% / 2% ratio.

2 Likes

So one thing with the original burn model, nothing gets burnt until there’s more rewards than the marketcap of the $YFI.

Staking model looks cool. Could be interesting to stake using a BPT that’s 80% YFI instead of 100% YFI.

Also very interested in the breakdown of protocol fees.

how can we verify the $52k in weekly rewards? what is the breakdown? where is the majority coming from out of this list?

  • yearn.finance interest
  • COMP from compound
  • CRV from curve.fi
  • curve.fi/y trading fees
  • ytrade.finance leverage fees and liquidation bonuses
  • yswap.exchange underlying system fees
  • iliquidate.finance liquidation bonuses
  • system dust (unassigned interest or fees)
4 Likes

The onchain voting ends in 3.5 hours and the quorum on this proposal hasn’t been reached yet (23% out of the required minimum of 33%). Please cast your vote now.

1 Like

What is the current burn model. How much yfi gets burn when i claim fees? We need some guides.

Proposal did not pass minimum quorum (22% out of 33% minimum).
It had 502,445 votes for and 3,953,417 votes against.

1 Like

Are there further strategies to improve voters turnout?

This might be a suggestion:

By extending the voting timelock (voteLock) duration; no change to votes counting mechanism is necessary, also drafted a proposal for discussion

A longer voting time lock can be beneficial, as voters won’t unstake wilfully between proposals

Proposal: Extending time lock duration on yGov pools (voteLock)

Quorum not met, possibly due to the contentious Proposal 0 in parallel with the Proposal 1

Since Prop 0: For vote has passed, in all clear conscience calling for a vote on the method of YFI Fee collection right now; whether to model fee collection on burning or to use staking would result in a clear winner emerging.

Update: there are other proposals live on-chain concurrently
According to this document, Prop #5 assesed as invalid and ignored

Summary of Ongoing Proposals (Live post)

Proposal 5: Reducing YFI weekly supply (NOT Valid)

Proposal 8: Halving YFI weekly supply the same as bitcoin

1 Like