Establish enhanced controls around the minting of YFI, either through the execution of some variation of a minter-burn or minter-lock, through the implementation of steeper voting requirements for subsequent mints, or through alternate means.
This assumes the YFI-minting YIP 57 passes: the drafters of this proposal are in favor of the mint and want to initiate a discussion around next steps for how to handle the minting keys. The goal of this discussion is to explore possible strategies and attempt to narrow our options down for a signaling poll.
With great power comes great responsibility, and the passing of a YFI-minting proposal to fund continued development efforts should also introduce controls around subsequent dilution efforts, which would:
- Promote diligent management of Yearn’s treasury
- Encourage sustainability through incentivizing a shift from issuance-based revenue to fee-based revenue
- Prevent adversarial actors from being able to profit from subversive minting proposals, i.e. by simultaneously shorting YFI and drumming up support for a minting proposal (@AliAtiia)
- Re-establish a degree of YFI supply predictability/scarcity that has been a draw for a subset of Yearn’s participants
Option 1 - Burn the Minter
Burning the minter is the most frequently requested option, involving setting the minting contract to the 0x0 burn address. Future dilution efforts may introduce significant overhead costs through forks or token migrations, which would act as a disincentive. However, these overhead costs may be relatively insignificant over a sufficiently long time horizon and a token migration could re-enable dilution trivially.
This option can be modified to initiate a countdown after which the YFI minter is burned, requiring a vote to either stop or extend the burn date. This would place the onus on mint-burning detractors to take action (@Arcturus).
Option 2 - Lock the Minter for a Length of Time
Locking the minter for a predetermined length of time is the impermanent variant of burning the minting contract, where advocates of minting more YFI would wait until X amount of time elapses before being able to propose any additional minting. However, similar to option 1, a token migration could re-enable dilution trivially.
Option 3 - Establish Higher Consensus Requirements for Future Minting
By establishing higher consensus requirements (through quorum and voting thresholds), future dilution becomes a political issue rather than a technical one. This would also proactively apply towards any dilution efforts stemming from token migrations. The quorum and voting thresholds would be parameterized with the goal of representing a community-wide consensus regarding the need for additional YFI minting.
Option 0 - No Change
Governance keeps current control of YFI minting keys.