We are worried about the amount of YFI currently being staked in this compound fork. What if they do a rug pull and take all the YFI? The founder already has a very large amount of YFI, does he end up with 51%?
Has Cream Finance been audited? https://github.com/CreamFi
We need to educate fellow YFI holders and warn if they may be putting precious YFI in something potentially dangerous.
EDIT* This can equally be applied to YAM and YAM forks.
There is currently 11 462 YFI in these 3 protocols. Yam - Cream and Shrimp
This is for sure scary since there is only 5 181 YFI in the governance.
We do need to be careful with that.
A similar concern was raised a few days ago:
If you lose your YFI in PASTA, I’m not voting for you to get it back.
Could we put a delay on when you can vote after staking YFI for ONLY YFI coming in from contracts that are larger than 20% (or an agreed upon number) of the YFI in the governance pool.
The delay = how long it takes to emergency pass some sort of block on those tokens if those coins are obtained through a hack.
I know this is unfair to whales who wish to vote immediately, but are there whales with more than 20%? Or could they split their YFI into smaller addresses smaller than 20% of the pool, so this would only affect addresses such as CREAM.
I definitely support this. They play stupid games, they can get stupid prizes. This timelock gives us enough time to protect the protocol from takeover.
YFI should definitely not be gambled.
1st. All my YFI is in governance and it’s not moved. So. Disclosure. Im a hard core supporter here which effect my response. That being:
Am I correct in understanding that only YFI that is staked and has voted will receive rewards?
If this is correct, then would those rewards (when rewards startup again) not be outsized until other YFI returns, stakes and votes?
So, the passive answer is to publicise the returns per staked YFI token on a day/week/month or annualised basis. My hypothesis being that many holders are running for yield without properly thinking this through. Risk vs. Reward.
From a security perspective I agree.
But from a solutions perspective, I feel the best way to combat this, which I suspected will only get worse is to become more transparent as we develop and mature our UI that our users engage with. This will be our front line.
I’m not keen in making voting more complicated tbh. I think simplicity and inclusion is key. What we need is to be more transparent and clear about our messaging. Especially with regards to the benefits of YFI governance staking.
Ok. I didn’t read it that way but it is a valid point. If a bad actor does steel the YFI and accrued more than 50% then that be v.Bad.
What website is this? I know I can check balances for token contracts on etherscan but this is much prettier
I agree YFI should be incentivized to be staked in governance rather than some meme farm. Could be a negative incentive like a timelock proposed, or a positive incentive, like having outsized yields for YFI staking. Positive incentive for YFI will also encourage others to obtain more YFI, driving price up for everyone.
Providing a larger share of YFI rewards could be marginally helpful, but right now there are (for good reason) no rewards going to YFI holders and even if there were, they would not likely be as high as the yield available through farming other projects.
@blackcoffee and @cnumber had some interesting ideas in another thread on this subject involving the creation of tokens for this purpose (so there would be no practical reason to use YFI for farming). Perhaps one or both will share their ideas here.
Inherently the YFI tokens have two components,
i) voting responsibility
ii) trading price
Currently the monetary component of the token seems to override the voting responsibility.
I’m also seeing some interesting ideas emerge across multiple discussion topics on this forum that could potentially be tied together to create a potential solution to address the voting issue while also increasing the security for the yield farming ecosystem.
It would be a framework for launching community backed high quality yield farming opportunities, which would require people to vote in governance first.
I’m hashing out a rough framework for how it might work…hope to present the details shortly to the community for further discussion…But I agree this is a concerning trend that needs to be addressed.
Wow, now there is a yearn vault that is deploying deposited YFI to farm CREAM. I guess Andre has vetted CREAM and decided it’s safe. This further highlights the tradeoffs between governance and yield.
We are not happy about this. Putting YFI in this YFIvault is extremely RISKY for everyone not just the people depositing.
Isnt this better than people depositing YFI directly on cream finance contract? I see this as a step in the right direction to control this issue. You cannot stop people chasing yields. But you can bring it under the purview of yVault so our best developers get to vet these farming opportunities before committing YFI tokens…rather than YFIs flying all over the place on their own. I think this is one right step towards an eventual solution.
We’re not depositing our YFI to any unaudited contracts. You’re suggesting ALL YFI holders to trust one single contract. If there’s any flaws, it all comes down. This is greed.
Greed, aka prioritizing yield, is the primary reason we’re all here, no?
I understand where you are coming from. Ofcourse this is greed/risky. But we cannot tell the market what is right and wrong. The market is not going to listen to anyone. All we can hope to do is put in the best set of guard rails in the short term and then look into longer term solutions that would address this over time.
Closed since inactive. Feel free to reopen if this topic is still relevant.
