Personally, I think this proposal could use a bit more clarification.
What kind of vote would you like to have? Just a signaling vote via Snapshot? Or do you want this to be a formal YIP?
Additionally, what exactly does this vote say? My best interpretation is that it’s basically:
For: Approve of what Yearn’s core team has planned with Pickle, continue to let the devs move forward.
Against: Condemn what they have done and move forward with plans to block it.
I think it’s tough to tell the Yearn devs to not collaborate or aid Pickle. This gets into an issue that’s tricky in normal business, but even trickier here—how do we tell people to spend their free time? How do we judge when time spent working on the Pickle collaboration impedes on a dev’s ability to maintain and develop Yearn? Additionally, the way grants work—you’re paid for the work after you do it. So we’d have to basically say that, moving forward, Yearn devs will only be judged based on Yearn-specific work, and not on anything they do with Pickle. But I really don’t like the idea of prohibiting helping out another protocol.
Furthermore, I would argue that this situation benefits Yearn immensely. Instead of our own devs having to launch another token whose emissions are granted to depositors in our vaults (an advantage that Harvest, Pickle, and most other yield aggregators had over Yearn), we are being handed a protocol with a token with remaining emissions that already has a community and demand. My point with this, being—if Yearn had decided to launch a gauge system like Curve, with a new token that you could vote-lock and was emitted, and there were some type of “protocol fees” that would flow to those who stake, then I think everyone would be stoked on it and no one would think twice.
Essentially, I think we trust Yearn’s devs, strategists, etc to constantly be producing products that are in the best interest of the protocol—how is this any different?