This isn’t a matter for interpretation, the specification literally says “All funds that are used for YFI staking rewards are to be used to buy back YFI” and “The YFI bought back flows into the Operations Fund”. As it is currently written this proposal ends staking rewards.
A time limit (ref. @DCinvestor), or some other limit such as a cap on funds flowing into the Ops fund (? $10m cumulative per annum), would change the dynamic (and, more importantly, external narrative) completely.
These are two separate points.
Regarding “getting YFI into those who will drive the most value to YFI holders is the most important element to the allocation”, my point is I don’t have enough information in this proposal to draw a conclusion over whether this is true. I can value the expected loss of staking rewards using a variety of methods; I can’t see enough information as to the likely value increase from increase Ops expenditure as there is little detail. So I don’t know if spending more on people with drive the most value for YFI holders or not.
Regarding “YFI stakers just aren’t anywhere close to our developers right now–the required work to ship versus forum and vote is over 1,000x apart.” I’d argue that post YIP-51/52/54 we’re already a lot closer. These have seen stakers transfer c. two-thirds of returns to developers, strategists and other contributors.
If the ultimate argument is that holders (stakers) aren’t doing anything of real value here then I understand that as a strance… but the logical conclusion of that is to transfer all economic rewards from Yearn to devs and assume tokens are worthless. That is sort of what this proposal achieves as currently written (with no limits), with the slight modification of a new use-case of YFI being used as a value transfer mechanism between fees and devs/contributors. But this mechanism works irregardless of price in the absence of lockups as the token can be bought, transferred and sold by the dev immediately.
These are difficult questions in this new distributed world. Where does value lie? Who should it accrue to? What mechanisms are right to align incentives? etc. etc… My fear is that this proposal goes one step too far in changing the fundamentals of the YFI token without a full exploration of the potential reprecussions.
To finish on a practical note, @dudesahn 's post above contains sensible proposals. 6-month review + vesting for contributions + even more transparency (preferably some around anticipated use of funds in advance of a formal vote) would resolve pretty much all of my concerns. And for aligning YFI holders with the rest of the system, locking YFI to receive rewards is an interesting proposal.