Yearn has a dream with plans to make Cream

Yearn and Cream developers have teamed up to launch Cream v2. The v2 launch will be focused on core lending and leverage products. Cream v2 enables earning yield with leverage, and is a launchpad for future Yearn & Cream collaborative lending products.

18 Likes

So is anyone that supplies to Cream v2, supplying to both leveraging lenders and to borrowers

1 Like

Wow! This is interesting.

1 Like

Very exciting. I’ve been reading the reactions to the ‘merger’ of Pickle with Yearn and have a few thoughts with regards to this ‘merger’. A lot of people seem to be confused because of the work devs are doing on ‘other’ platforms. These individuals should be ignored and potentially warned, even a cursory reading of the ‘mergers’ makes it clear that Yearn depositors and YFI holders benefit from what’s being co-created and devs actions are solidly within their rights.

Anyone confused about why this type of cooperation is not a governance issue should consider:

  1. Yearn needs other synergistic partners to create the best strategies (which anyone can create)
  2. Yearn devs are autonomous and free individuals
  3. Yearn governance optimally has little control over strategies (financial incentives are enough)

If a holder takes issue with any of these we should encourage them to divest of their holding as they do not understand what it is they own.

All that said… I’m incredibly excited…

*** Yearn vault shares serve as collateral in Cream** Will open a lot of interesting possibilities as well as free long term holders to make their YFI even more productive.
*** Yearn vault strategies get access to leverage through Cream** HUGE, and I think Yearn benefits from this being in the wheelhouse of adjacent teams.
*** Cream specializes in lending-related products** Again to my point above, let’s Yearn devs focus on core offering while creating inter-operational synergies
*** Cream becomes the launchpad for Stable Credit** Cool, using other products as testing grounds and R&D labs for specific product segments is, again, smart.
*** Yearn & Cream launch a new 0 collateral protocol credit solution** Very interested to learn more
*** Pair lending :ice_cream:** :eyes:

Anyways, Thanksgiving here in the states. Hope all are well.

6 Likes

Thanks for the subtweet :wink:

Let’s go through this point by point:

  1. Yearn needs other synergistic partners to create the best strategies (which anyone can create)

Yes. Absolutely no disagreement there.

  1. Yearn devs are autonomous and free individuals

Again, I totally agree. However, YFI holders are also “autonomous and free individuals” and if they do not want Yearn governance fees to be spent on a particular initiative, they are free to vote against it.

  1. Yearn governance optimally has little control over strategies (financial incentives are enough)

Even if the optimal amount is “little” it is not zero. If I create a vault which is a pure rug-pull, my financial incentives are not aligned with those of YFI holders.

If a holder takes issue with any of these we should encourage them to divest of their holding as they do not understand what it is they own.

YFI holders are also free to vote in governance to divest support for projects they do not support.

1 Like

I appreciate the response and had no intentions of singling you out (although I did read your post before this one). I take most of your points and I don’t think we’re really in disagreement.

I would however posit that YFI holders ultimate vote comes down to their ability to sell the asset. I recognize that it would be preferable for all holders to be able to voice their opinion in an upfront manner, but I also don’t think there is much need for an opinion to be voiced in the case of collaboration with other teams. As far as I understand the treasury is to be used to maintain operations. Depositors are looking for return and so Yearn optimally uses whatever products are most advantageous to the assets seeking return. If we run out of products to use, we’d have to expend further resources to build in house solutions which would decrease the amount of time core devs can work on core products and decrease the distance which treasury funds can take us.

There are no limitations on what devs can do outside of their work for yearn. As such we should tread carefully when it comes to believing we can tell them what the optimal pattern of work is. Perhaps all of the work to integrate was done on personal time? It’s hard to draw a line when it comes to this sort of thing, especially given its novelty.

Perhaps I’m missing something, but given the fact that Yearn was started to optimally use composable products, I believe all actions so far related to Pickle and Cream fall within the scope of YFI operations as currently laid out. The only vote we as holders could have any ‘right’ to undertake is: should we cease using out of house products? as that would be a change of direction.

I truly don’t think there is value in putting this up to vote as the holding of the asset is an implicit agreement with the value prop.

Again, no intention to call you out specifically and I’m genuinely interested in any and all thoughts or criticisms related to what I’ve stated here.

Something I believe we should discuss more is whether holders function more like a c-suite or a board. I believe it’s the latter

All the best!

1 Like

I believe there is some reasonable middle between:

Devs are not answerable to YFI holders at all

And

Devs must be completely answerable to YFI holders for how they spend every minute of their working hours.

I think the community wants Andre and the others to keep doing great work and seeking out new partners and opportunities. But they also want to feel that they have some say over “major decisions”. When the Pickle announcement came out, it was described (at least in the circles I frequent on twitter) as “YFI and Pickle are merging”, which seems like a “major decision”.

I don’t think

should we cease using out of house products?

Is the “only vote”.

In this case, a little communication would go a long way. If devs would lay out a general sketch of what their priorities were say once a month or so, and when a large new thing (like the Pickle or Cream “mergers”) was added to that schedule, they could at least have a poll, so it seems like they’re asking rather than telling.

I strongly disagree with the claim that

YFI holders ultimate vote comes down to their ability to sell the asset

YFI holders ultimate vote is the ability to vote. The current representation of that power is the “nuclear” options of voting to withhold funds or replace multisig holders. By maintaining a reasonable level of communication, the dev team can create a back-and-forth so that people don’t feel like they need to resort to or threaten drastic options.

Again, I want to emphasize we’re all on the same team. I can only assume everyone who holds YFI wants to see it succeed. But devs acting like YFI holders are the enemy or treating governance like an obstacle rather than a feature of Yearn isn’t the right way to create long-term value.

To summarize:

  1. Communication
  2. Communication
  3. Communication!
3 Likes

thanks for your opinion, very insightful!
One question: If I believe that stablecredits is going to have lots of adoption, what should I “bet” on: CREAM or YFI? I don’t know how any of these 2 tokeens would capture value with stablecredits adoption, not sure if enough information has been released so that this can be known.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.