Switch to gYFI time weighted voting power distribution

Summary:

Change current 1:1 YFI voting power to 1:x/365 voting power, where x is days locked

Abstract:

Implement a new wrapped token gYFI that allocates voting power based on locked weight. Rewards to be distributed based on gYFI instead of YFI.

Motivation:

The proposal is to distribute more voting power to long term minded decision makers. This will increase the security and best interest participation of voters.

Specification:

Implement the new locked wrapper, 1 YFI = days/365 gYFI. Switch governance to gYFI implementation.

For: Implemented weighted voting power

Against: Keep system as is

Poll:

  • For
  • Against

0 voters

19 Likes

Can gyfi also accept yyfi so that yVault people can also receive rewards please

6 Likes

We should be very cautious with allowing voting with yYFI. Imagine some protocol double vote with the staked YFI.

As for this proposal, my vote is for, it has many interesting implications:

  • People with longer-term vision have more say in the protocol development
  • It provides a healthy split between yYFI/gYFI

Edit: This comment implies gYFI being not transferrable, which seems like it’s not the proposed design.

28 Likes

Also, if I read it correctly, you get more rewards too.
The most invested in running the platform should be compensated. Great initiative

6 Likes

I personally don’t agree with this. You either farm or you stake.

My views are also turning towards keeping voting purely for staked YFI. On this note, why would we need gYFI?( as another token) If staking YFI that does not move from the gov contact does the same thing?

4 Likes

I’m not sure if this would have a deleterious effect or is even possible: would you consider making gYFI a type of ERC token that can’t be listed on exchanges? To increase the barrier of it getting into the hands of malicious actors

Edit: Related to what iTo mentions below, making gYFI a non standard ERC token (à la LinkPool which cannot be listed on standard DEXs and CEXs) could prevent a malicious actor with a lot of capital from purchasing governance power (gYFI) on an exchange and vote bombing despite not having staked any YFI for any amount of time

3 Likes

Because it’s time weighted. If I have 1 yfi that I’ve staked for a whole year, it has the same voting power as a whale who stakes 365 yfi for 1 day.

Seems like a good way to minimise vote bombing if you ask me

11 Likes

Would this be capped at 1? I agree with the concept, but believe increasing voting power past a certain point is not necessary, as the loss from pulling out eventually starts outweighing further gain and should be enough to serve as a deterrent. Not having diminishing returns over time however could snowball out of control with ancient ones from the deep gaining tremendous power over years.

9 Likes

There should be a limit on the days, years, decades that can be counted Toward this weight, or what incentive is there for newcomers to participate? The value of yfi would be affected. Maybe a 25% bonus for staking over 3 months might be acceptable. Also, does everyone start at zero days when this passes, or some people get a huge head start? It should start at zero.

5 Likes

Ooh. I like that perspective. But does this require a new token or is ‘gYFI’ just a figure of speech to describe the concept but does not result in another token?

3 Likes

Would be this retroactive, I.e. people that have been staking in gov contract and voting since a month would obtain more gYFI that people that will come back after been playing with YFI in other contracts?

How can this be manipulated by exchanges? If binance has 4K yfi but they know they will probably only need 1k for withdrawals normally they can stake the other 3k in gov until they get called and have outsize voting rights potentially? And if most yfi holders are farming it may be easy to lose control?

I do agree with the proposal though.

I really don’t think we should be creating another token unless gYFI is distributed internally within the system as a measure of time only. And all gYFI associated to a wallet burned proportionally to the withdrawn YFI.

3 Likes

I support any tweaks that reward YFI holders’ commitment to participate in governance, such as this. But seeing how things are unfolding, I’m wondering:

Does it make sense to merge the YFI vault with YFI governance, so YFI holders can do all three simultaneously: 1) stake to vote in governance; 2) stake to earn governance rewards; 3) earn YFI yield with the vault strategies.

Why force YFI holders to choose between the yYFI vault (yield) and governance staking (rewards)? Why not allow us to do it all—to the benefit of the token and the system?

Maybe I’m overlooking a reason why this is not a good idea. Is there a downside, perhaps it introduces more risk?

8 Likes

If reward yield gets high enough per YFI per day or week, all YFI will come home to stake is my opinion.

3 Likes

Would be pretty simple to see what yfi tokens came from the binance wallet. Perhaps they can be excluded from voting?? They wouldn’t own all of those coins, lots would belong to users of the exchange.

1 Like

I do agree but not sure this is technically possible as the YFI in a vault is staked outside of our control and therefore causes the risk of double voting.

Edit:
By this I mean. YFI staked in the YFI vault is then staked in Cream. Someone can borrow that YFI and stake it in the voting contract.

This also means, if you wanted to vote, you’d first have to get your YFI back. This would not be possible because the vote lock prevents each point in the system to unwind.

3 Likes

Not just you. I’ve been wondering why we don’t merge all 3 also.

Edit: thanks for the explanations. I get it now.

4 Likes

They wouldn’t own the coins but they have control of the coins do they not? So back to my example. Say they have 4K coins but never need more than 1k for withdrawal than they can stake 3k permanently.

1 Like

Exactly that. The vault strategies are inherently more risky because you’re exposed to more smart contracts, congestion/exit risks, liquidation risks for delegated vaults, etc.

2 Likes