Vaults V2 Design

keep up the great work! :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Great work from the team. I’ve be willing to help summarize proposals and main changes, because the unsaid part to all this is to have more people competing to push new strategies. We need people outside the current ecosystem to understand it and see the potential in becoming a strategist.

We will def need the brainpower, given the current landscape in yield farming. Challenging times, but also surviving times like these are the true long term moats for open protocols

6 Likes

Question: On this page, https://snapshot.page/#/yearn/proposal/QmRKmXuEMaqY38ccvuZREmi6SfMxyhWQMT3mhJ6Cgfeqq9
it describes , "…that a refactor of the Vault system to add these features would be an improvement . This is going beyond a refactor is it not? Hence the major versioning update? Sorry to be pedantic just catching up on this now, want to make sure that I understand the proposal.

Thanks for the work and vision!

1 Like

All addressed. Looks good!

1 Like

Can someone specify fee structure on v2? Are we are removing a withdraw fee? I’m a bit confused – is it 1% split between gov & strategist?

1 Like

Finalizing the hard numbers will be a separate proposal, probably alongside the finalized design.

2 Likes

Yes. So it’s a refactor in the sense that it’s not changing the core ideas or structure of Vaults and Strategies, or what their intended purpose is. However, it does add a number of desirable features, some of which are aiming to increase/smooth yields (multiple strategies, easier templates for making strategies) and others aimed at keeping the system safer (security improvements, simplified API, heavier duty testing now possible), so it’s not a strict refactor in the technical sense.

I think overall it isn’t that large of a change from the user’s perspective, but it does deserve the major version upgrade

1 Like

This proposal had passed the vote in Snapshot, and discussion has cooled off without any further action items (as I see it)

If people have further questions or comments, this document will be moved to the v2 Vaults repository

1 Like

Someone needs to dumb this down before any voting takes place. This thread is too intimidating. Unless this is the type of thing that’s best voted on by those that understand.

I’ve tried to read some of the technical posts and I find it beyond me. I’m not an expert by any measure but I’m certainly not ignorant of the space either.

New people are not going to get it, but perhaps the only thing they need is to feel-the-yeild

2 Likes

I’m assuming there will be some form of summary to help the voters…but i’m guessing that this should be a pretty straight forward vote to push through…

If you don’t understand it you shouldn’t be voting. Do a little research to fully understand the project before you get involved in the voting process.

5 Likes

Definite yes. Lets roll baby

@fubuloubu has there been any consideration for using GasToken or Chi Token to save on gas costs? I just saw that YFV is doing this for their vaults/strategies—they claim 50-60% reductions in fees using Chi.

Anything to save on gas costs (which sound like they are considerable) would be awesome.

3 Likes

This can be explored, without having to go too in depth with the current design.

The way strategies work the harvest/reporting call is the most expensive. We want to keep this kind of complexity out of the core Vault, but Strategies can implement gas saving features if that improves price/performance cost

3 Likes

Awesome!

And just to clarify to make sure I understand—the way harvest() works (in terms of implementing a gas-saving solution like CHI), this could be done at the Strategy level as opposed to needing to be integrated at the Vault framework level, correct?

Thanks!

This may be hearsay but as far as I know Vitalik isn´t happy about the concept of CHI tokens at all. The economics behind it make people bloat the blockchain with spam contracts just to burn it when gas prices are high.

From what I´ve heard they want to remove this functionality (reimbursement for SC destruction), hence CHI is probably not here to stay.

When it comes to saving GAS, we should definitely consider to port yearn to L2. As long as the ecosystem is bootstrapped and farming opportunities exist, we can join and provide the yield optimization.

On Matic there is already a lending protocol like Aave (EASY) and a DEX like Uniswap (Quickswap). Both provide liquidity mining.

I´m not so deep into the other L2 networks but this one is a beast coming to life before our eyes. Transaction times 1-2 seconds and after over 200 tx I still didn´t pay a full penny. Layer 1 GAS saving solutions simply cannot compete.

1 Like

Yes, that’s spot on! All harvest() implementation exists in the Strategy contract, so Strategists are free to optimise as they see fit. One challenge with this approach is that the CHI tokens that are burned on harvest() need to come from somewhere… They could be sent to the Strategy contract by the Strategist, or minted by the Strategy contract when tend() is called assuming gas costs are within an acceptable threshold. Having them minted by the contract on tend() is probably a good idea since tend() is part of the Strategy Interface and therefore it’d be easy to calculate gas cost reimbursements for CHI minting.