**[Proposal]** Developer Incentives

Yes! whole-heartedly support @banteg
To all the ‘there was a vote we can’t change our minds’ cohort -> stop being stingy parasites, let builders BUILD

1 Like

While more elaborate solutions could be better, ultimately they would need to be fleshed out and built which takes focus away from other core development.

“YFI Pact” plays into more memes and is simple. KISS.

Rushed, but urgent.
Stop bleeding. Devs are leaving to Hegic, Idle, Sushi…
We are a great, agile, flexible DAO, not a weak hung paliament.
Compensate our talents to keep us competitive as quick as possible, please.


I voted against this proposal because operations receives a significant portion of protocol revenue, from which they can conduct buybacks, reward devs, and just about anything else they need. If we believe that YFI v2 will be much bigger, operations will soon have more funds than they know what to do with.

Let’s grow underlying protocol revenue instead of taking short cuts like minting more YFI.

1 Like

Has there been a single vote that hasn’t gone in favour of the devs getting more funding? AFAIK we had salaries vote, a vote to increase Banteg and Artem salaries and then a vote to use Operations Fund/Treasury to accumulate YFI for devs. All passed with a very large majority in favour.

Could someone from the dev side explain why they feel like they haven’t been adequately supported? I had a look over and couldn’t see a single proposal that was ruled against. I know personally, I want the devlopers to own significant parts of the token in question, but I’m not sure why 50-100% of the revenue doesn’t align incentives better. Just use the revenue to buy the token if you want the speculative upside?

I don’t think any holder has expressed an unwillingness to support the dev team, clearly, it is in everyone’s interests. However, I think many people are concerned about this game where the goalposts are continuously moved. I would really like to know what the devs truly want, so I can make a decision regarding it. At the moment it feels like I keep saying “yes” and then as soon as I turn around there is another question waiting to be asked.

Without being especially well-informed I felt like the salaries being offered were quite low. However, I am not really in a position to contend with this, and they seem to have been accepted, implying at the time the developers in question were happy with the figures(?). Is it possible to ascertain an idea about this? I.E if every salary was doubled, or matched with the equivalent in YFI tokens vested over 1-3 years?

I am unwilling to give the multisig or treasury carte blanche to mint tokens and spend them how they wish due to the management being terrible (imo). To point towards some examples, Blue Kirby got 25 YFI and we pay CL207 $300 a month for waifu pics. Just like after the discussion in October, if a clear and transparent plan is presented, I am sure it will be voted in favour of.

I also find it a bit sickly to continuously be dunked on as a holder who has contributed his own personal capital. I haven’t opposed the team on a single vote, and to be treated like I’m a greedy bastard because the devs can’t be bothered to write up a clear proposal feels very shitty. Write a long term proposal with adequate vesting and treasury management, clear targets to unlock tokens.

I didn’t see the team oppose the vote to burn the minting keys at the time even though it was blatantly short-term signalling for a price boost. This largely symbolic act not being implemented is deeply concerning, even though as others have highlighted, it’s symbolic and easy enough to migrate.

P.S I do understand sometimes I reference the “team” above and its not strictly fair, I know you are individuals with different views and sometimes actions were taken prior by individuals.


:postal_horn: public service announcement :postal_horn:

There was never a binding vote to burn the YFI minting keys

There is a formal process for passing YIPs:

  1. discussion & non-binding signaling poll
  2. if enough support, then one may make a YIP with a binding vote

The most recent update to this process is here YIP-55: Formalize the YIP Introduction & Voting Process.

The proposal in quesiton, Burn YFI minting ability permanently, was at the first stage: signaling. That vote was for with 93%. But no one took the next step and made it a YIP. There was no binding vote.

I understand why this was confusing. At this time we had recently moved to snapshot for both signaling and binding votes, so people were confused about which was which. Previously we would do a forum poll and then an on-chain vote which made it more clear.

I don’t know why Andre didn’t take the next step, nor why no one else did. It is not automatic or required, but discretionary. Since that didn’t happen, it was never a YIP, and there was no binding vote, so yes we still have the minting keys and governance can still legitimately vote to mint more YFI.

The other case I see mentioned around how we don’t honor votes (this is provably false) is the SNX vault proposal YIP 34: Add Synthetix (SNX) to yVaults. This was a formal YIP and it did pass. So why don’t we have a SNX vault? It’s because no strategist has found an effective way to make one. Simple as that. We could vote to make a DAI vault with 1,000,000% APY but until a developer can figure out how to do that, we cannot implement it. We do not vet proposals for feasibility before they are posted, our system is permissionless. Once someone is able to write a good SNX strategy, we’ll be able to implement that YIP.

cc @silent_avenger1 @Kapemal @urizenus @captainobvious @Squid @gspoosi @Avie @pat


That doesn’t seem to align with the above? It certainly gave me the impression it was a development time issue and not because a “binding vote” hadn’t passed. I don’t know the exact timeline given the early date of the Minting vote but the YIP process was probably not formally implemented at that time?

I don’t think the topic matters at this point, it will probably come down to semantics and will just continue division. The community needs the team to honestly communicate their demands. At that point, something can be worked out. Until then both sides are left speculating in not a particularly nice fashion about one another.

yes, there was an actual vote – it was a signaling vote on snapshot as I explained. The voting process was formalized at that time, you can go back and look at the progression of all the previous YIPs if you like. We could have done better to clarify the voting process. But on the other hand, that proposal was the first post on the topic and it didn’t say YIP or have a YIP number, so, pretty clear to me what it was.


My thought process is in terms of dev ownership of org. Looking at comparable DeFi projects, 3% is still tiny.

I’m a bigger fan of @banteg’s most recent proposal. I think builders should have a minimum of 10% equity. Else, they’ll go somewhere they can get at least that. I just wanted to get the ball rolling with 3%.

1 Like

Straw man - I completely agree with that statement; however, we differ on what will contribute the long-term fundamentals. I am saying that there are sustainable ways to reward devs and invest in yearn that don’t require compromising the trust of the community.

1 Like

I read that the vote was a carrot for someone to research an on-chain governance system, where it would be the first autonomously executed proposal.


This isn’t compromising the trust of the community in my opinion. The community will decide what’s more important: a hard cap or proper incentives for our builders


First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I don’t understand the problem. Here is a strategy based on 10 seconds of reflection. Take the SNX in the vault, stake the SNX at synthetics.io. What does this accomplish? Well instead of each contributor having to pay the transaction fees once a week to claim rewards (fees that some weeks are more than the rewards claimed), everything is merged into a single transaction fee for the entire vault. Then use the staked SNX to mint SUSD and put the SUSD in a curve pool or use it to buy SBTC and put that in a curve pool or I don’t care just sit on it and let it 3X.

I am fully aware of the long history of online communities voting for things that can’t be done. This dates at least to the days of LambdaMOO and Haakon’s post-Mr. Bungle “New Direction” and the subsequent failure of the New Direction. But is building a vault for SNX really an impossibility for the big brains that are now asking for more compensation for their fine work?

The only way this passes is with a YFI token vote, so I have no clue what you’re talking about.

that’s a bit melodramatic.

are you suggesting that I am ignoring the issue? When in fact, I am just illustrating the issue with the proposal that came out of nowhere, and why it was received with little serious thought, that is until there were 187 comments.

I do guess the discussion needed to start somewhere, and I do salute you for bringing it to the table.

I have learned a lot about the benefits of inflation from this discussion and the discussions connected to this.

But I do still stand by my points that this proposal needs to be recompiled with a clearly set out plan.

Also, it might have helped if you had supplied some assurances that the devs were dissatisfied, which has come out of this discussion as a result of it, so again this is great.

I am fairly active in this community, not to the extend of some, but much more so then many yfi holders, and I had little idea of this level of an issue. But I get that the Devs are not going to come out and complain about their compensation (which is an issue that needs to be addressed as they are most certainly the spine of the beast). When I first read this, I was of the understanding that the V2 perf fees and then the BABY was going to make them happy. It was an assumption, I do admit, but it was my understanding.

With all this in mind, I can honestly say I was not looking away as they carted the “Jews, unionists, and socialists” off for the slaughter.


Sounds reasonable. But I’m not a strategist and I haven’t looked into this closely. There may be implementation details that wouldn’t make it as easy as you say. I don’t know the specifics here. When I asked a strategist about this a while back I was told there weren’t good options. I trust that. But if this is important to you, maybe they overlooked something. Discuss it in the strategy channel and make it happen.

1 Like

Sorry. Am sleep deprived. Was definitely over the top.

It will be recompiled with much more details, not sure if by me or someone else. Lots of people writing up right now.

1 Like

What I’m talking about is that it doesn’t matter what passes, whether it is a signaling vote or a YIP. The devs do what they want to do. You can vote on a YIP but it has no binding force. Voting on a YIP here is like sitting in one of those little kid car seats that have a “steering wheel”. You can pretend you are “governing” the protocol, but that is the same sense in which the little kid is “driving” the car.


Yes until you can replace DeFi developers with robots this will always be the case in every org.