Yearn Retention Packages

The allocations are correct as listed.


The main question currently is: can people change anything in the proposed distribution?


Wow that’s so lame, I’d swear that right now I’m wearing a hoodie with roughly 50 names in the back but of course a lot of those people didn’t do anything for yearn ( or only worthless work) since summer and of course all of them have been rewarded accordingly


I have to say I’m also very surprised by those numbers. I was also expecting something more like 50-100 people. Basically 16 members is only the core team.

Guess the rest will share the community (12) part.


Doesn’t this 6 month backdate effectively mean no vesting cliff period for the people who are getting the vast majority of these tokens? Linear vesting helps, but effectively no cliff is not great.

If YFI intention is to signal to the market that the team isn’t rushing to dump, increase this 6 months backdated cliff to 1 year backdated.


I don’t believe there is additional signaling needed. These are people who gave their soul to Yearn, they’ve been incredibly helpful and loyal to the project, they weren’t ever promised any upside. Changing the cliff would send them wrong signals, same as saying we mistrust them. Yearn retains a right to punish misbehavior, terminate the package and claw back YFI to treasury, so there is no need to assume malice by default.


If they dump, they’re dumping on themselves. The max anyone person is getting is around 50 tokens, roughly 2.5 mn. Vested over three years, that is exceptionally reasonable (very low tbh, but this is the first package) for the value that has been created.


@cryptouf if they’re people you think are overlooked, DM me. Would love to hear more and help fight for them if 12 is far from sufficient.


You might want to read it again. 275 each for 6 people with effectively no vesting cliff. Don’t get me wrong, I am very bullish on the project, but this backdating the cliff AND making it only 6 months is exactly the sort of thing that would’ve been broadly opposed if it were open for discussion in the forum. It should’ve been 12 months backdated


Meh for so-called “trust” in crypto. It’s business and this was effectively an equity raise. Backdating the cliff so it’s nonexistent with no chance for the community to disagree is not exactly behavior that inspires trust.


Hey all, I’m taking some time off to recover from an extremely intense couple months but just wanted to follow up here on a couple things.

First a bit about this process. It was really hard. I am not complaining, just want to explain a bit more. Trying to figure out proper compensation for everyone that had helped yearn grow would have been an impossible task — and also that was outside the scope of YIP-57 which was about retaining key contributors.

Our mandate was to make sure the people critical to yearn’s success, the people that could go off and start their own project easily, were properly incentivized to keep building Yearn. So we were limited to that which is a relatively small number of people. But that doesn’t in any way mean other contributors aren’t important.

Yes, we had to limit to the core team for this retention package—people that were full-time at yearn and critical contributors. I’m sorry that we couldn’t more clearly reward everyone else yet.

This process required discussions with each member of the team, getting their commitment to yearn, and making sure their role was clear. There was no way we could do that for 50 people in this timeframe, and tbh that’s not what this part of YIP-57 mandated.

So what about everyone else? What about you two, all the other names on the hoodie, and all the other people who have been spending their free time working their asses off for Yearn? We haven’t forgotten you.

First, we have a nice war chest for future hires. I welcome anyone who has been a contributor that wants to go deeper to reach out to me and we can talk about options. That’s a part of YIP-57 too, but not this part.

Second, the 12 YFI for the community. We have a list of about 20 people we want to give that to, but it’s not finalized. Rewards for all the selfless work that has been done.

Third, we are building Coordinape, a new tool to improve our community grant process. I have been self-funding a small team to develop it. It’s a way to fully decentralize the grants process where contributors themselves, not the ops team or multisig, will decide how to distribute a monthly budget of community grants. More on this soon. If you want to help with this, please contact @zem

Yearn is an emerging network. Some contributors need to be compensated in more normal ways, like those in this post. Others will float in and out, do things here and there, and the above model doesn’t make sense for them—but they still bring great value. For now I think we’ll continue to have two systems: community grants (soon via coordinape) and the core team retained here.

And last thing, about dumping — as described above yearn has right of first refusal. If people want to sell their vested YFI they have to tell us first and Yearn would buy it back OTC at market rates, so no dumping. We will be very strict on that.


Is this correct? I’m reading 6 people are getting 250 yfi, each, I don’t disagree with these allocations, just want to make sure nobody is confused here. Seeing as you’re on the committee this is an odd statement to make.


It’s @YFI-Cent on the CWG not @yfi_lit

Tiers 1-5 are YFI per person so eg each of the 6 people in tier 1 get 275 YFI vesting over 3 years.


Ah I see that makes sense.

1 Like

Thanks @tracheopteryx for this answer.

Probably missed track at some point. Really thought those package were for all contributors. So thanks for this clarification. Need to go back again to YIP-57 :rofl:

Ho, good to know that. Happy to help @zem if needed

Yep sure, no problem about that. And nothing to say about the first message. It’s fair , and make sense. You guys need to be compensated properly for what you did, are doing and will do.


Nice initiative!

Retention is really important and most of the people I know in yearn are really valid.

Completely supportive on this.

Who are the recipients? I am especially interested in the strategist ones


So from the post it sounds like the core team members now have more established roles, but the wider yearn community isnt allowed to know which of their favorite contributors are in which roles, nor what the budget is for these roles?

This doesnt feel very DAOlike imo.

Security is important of course but once Yearn starts making decisions about non-transparent payments to anonymous individuals it starts to feel much more like a traditional business than the open, permissionless network that I felt such passion for.

How is governance supposed to do their job without relevant information rgarding who is doing what and how much theyre being paid for it?

Its worth noting that I am not just saying this as a 3rd party observer. Yearn has paid me in the past for my dashboard development work, and the payments were completely transparent, without issue. So, I do have a small bit of skin in the game and understand why security is important.

Are grants going to remain transparent while core team packages are kept private?

Or are we promoting security for all contributors equally here?

I want to be sure I understand this correctly, so feel free to correct me on anything I’ve misinterpreted.

I think transparency is key to Yearn’s success (the success of any DAO, really) and will always advocate for more of it.

We are all cartoons for a reason :man_shrugging:


Yea it’s a fair point frankly, and not something anyone took lightly.

Ideally there would be full transparency, with names next to each tier. But that needed to be weighed against the ease of a $5 wrench attack.

These are existing contributors - some anonymous, but others semi or non-anonymous. They’ve operated tirelessly for 6 months without the expectation or opsec of a bearer instrument compensation package.

There’s an unresolvable trade off between security and transparency, and the committee has provided as much transparency as possible without recklessly jeopardizing the security of Yearn’s contributors.

That being said, I do believe the team is looking forward to sharing much more about the org structure as it solidifies and grows.


I’m curious to know, in your eyes, what is the role of governance in Yearn’s ecosystem?


My bad misread, but yeah not involved in the proposal. Thanks for helping clarify

1 Like