YIP-57: Funding Yearn's Future

Anyone is able to suggest a proposal to burn the minting keys, place them behind a quorum, add additional time lock, or suggest alternative protections at any time. The coauthors discussed this at length and decided to keep this YIP focused, allowing others to follow this course if they so chose.

For what it’s worth, all of yearn’s peers that we reviewed have available minting permissions.

8 Likes

One group wants a mint and the other wants the minter burned. That’s pretty much the two ends of the spectrum. Passing a proposal with both ensures both actually happen, and would likely have the most collective support than either one individually.

14 Likes

I thought the vote passed to burn the mint. I really don’t care if the minting keys aren’t burned if there was no vote passed. it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth if there was a vote for a burn and the burn does not happen.

2 Likes

22% is quite a lot. ~11% sounds more reasonable (please don’t compare YFI to other projects!). Also the minter has to be burned.

2 Likes

The vote did pass, but not with enough votes for it to be actionable if I recall

That was a signaling poll, non-binding. Many have been confused by this, here are some resources for you:

YIP-55: Formalize the YIP Process is our formal proposal process.

This proposal doesn’t change the status quo of the minting keys, it instantly transfers them back to the timelock. What we really need is some better system which requires a large quorum and differential for any further actions with the token and probably for managing treasury too.

@external
def brrr():
    assert not self.minted  # dev: already minted
    assert self.yfi.governance() == self  # dev: not governance
    self.yfi.addMinter(self)
    self.yfi.mint(treasury, total)
    self.yfi.removeMinter(self)
    self.yfi.setGovernance(timelock)
    self.minted = True
7 Likes

i hope this proposal and vote passes, i think it’s essential to reciprocate the sacrifice that the people building this have made, ensuring the health of Yearn thriving into the future.

3 Likes

I hope it won’t pass like it is. 22% is too much.

4 Likes

good detailed proposal with a reasonably sized mint. would support vesting of 2,222 for current contributors retroactive to start date. the challenge moving forward will be the community coming to consensus on what to use the treasury for (as well as yfi accumulated under buy back). 22% is not a lot considering the time horizon & puts in line with other protocols. think people should not get too scared by the word inflation here… this sets up yearn well long term.

8 Likes

Attach the minter burn to this and this is an easy yes vote.

3 Likes

Voting no until minter burn is attached to the proposal.

4 Likes

I am a supporter of a one-time minting to align incentives and secure the development in a very competitive environment, But I really think you need to include a guarantee that the minter will be burned!

5 Likes

Attach mint burn to this as well as a compromise imo then we can move forward.

2 Likes

Burning minter keys means that Yearn will ever be able to change the tokenomics IMO.

1 Like

I think burning the keys is actually kind of short sighted. We are in the early days of defi and tokenomics are only in the 1st inning.

First by burning the keys are we removing a function that might be useful and necessary over the long-run to make the protocol economically competitive. How many companies out there say let’s put in our charter banning the ability to sell equity (as an analogy). That seems kind of foolish.

Second, what I think you are saying hey I don’t want to get diluted, which I get, but remember any token issuance should be for something that is value accretive and provides an overall economic benefit to Yearn in excess of the minting costs. Here, the 1/3rd allocation of the treasury provides for competitive market based compensation that in the absence would lead to a brain drain and IMO a death spiral for YFI. The issuance clearly exceeds the costs.

Finally, governance will be deciding future uses of the minted tokens and whether or not there is a long-term economically accretive reason to do so further in the future. Unless you can tell me Yearn ideal tokenonics in full detail removing a potential arrow from our quiver makes no logical sense. Given many peers (if not all) have kept their minting keys, burning them doesn’t seem like anything more than a meme. Seems like a burn the witch kind of thing to me. Can anyone who supports burn provide a rational reason why burning the keys and not leaving optionality is in Yearn’s long term interest?

15 Likes

If the minter isn’t burned then ~10% extra tokens should be sufficient for coming years. Then we’ll see how it goes.

With the keys burned now we won’t be able to do this proposal and would be starving, so I guess that’s an argument why limiting optionality is bad.

Overall I’m ambivalent about burning the keys. If the keys are burned and we ever need to change the supply again (either way, e.g. we implement EIP-1559), we can migrate YFI token and add more features at the same time.

9 Likes

burning the keys is only useful if you don’t trust the multi-signers to not do an unexpected ad-hoc mint, and if that is the case then i would ask yourself why you’re holding the token to begin with. if yearn had burned keys in the summer it would be significantly limiting right now, and it’s likely yfi would have proposals pushing for migrating the token to a new contract, thus making burning the keys a moot point.

9 Likes

Or you can look at it just as raising the bar for additional mints. If an additional mint is just one multisig tx away it will always be somewhat alluring as an easy way out. If it require a completely new token then that bar is significantly higher.
If there ever was a huge overhaul (e.g. ETHLEND -> AAVE) to make YFI more than a zero value governance token then lots of more features could be included in such an update.

5 Likes