I will support the @yfi_whale model exclusively.
I motion to limit issuance to pool3(governance) and to phase out pool1(yCRV) and pool2(DAI) once the initial 20k YFI have been farmed out of these two pools. When emission rates drop to zero, yield farmers will be forced to withdraw their yCRV and DAI from what will become zero yield pools. While these two high yield pools were good for bootstrapping, they do not deliver long term value to the protocol. I do not foresee market participants dumping their YFI at the end of the 30k liquidity mining period, but a liquidity drain of pool1 and pool2 is expected. However, this is not a problem, given that we want people to withdraw their yCRV and DAI from these pools anyways. Limiting further pool issuance to pool3 will phase out pool1 and pool2 by the natural action of game theory, while simultaneously incentivising liquidity from those pools to move into the governance pool (pool3).
The number 42 provides memetic synergy with chainlink, and I am inclined to believe that this is a significant synchronicity in the context of YFI and this proposal. I am therefore in support of a motion to mint 1k YFI for @andre.cronje to incentivize his genius, 1k as a general governance treasury, and 10k to be distributed via pool3 liquidity mining to incentivize governance participation. The 10k allocated to pool3 should be distributed in accordance with the timeframe proposed by @yfi_whale. Following the minting of these 12k tokens, minting keys should be burned leaving total supply at 42k YFI forever. Other incentives to build value into YFI can be proposed at a later date.
I will reject all other models of token issuance. The 42 model rewards genius, secures a treasury, and provides a small amount of inflation to incentivize governance participation (which is the whole point of YFI in the first place).