YIP-61: Governance 2.0

An excellently crafted proposal, so thank you to all who have contributed.

Absolutely in favour of adopting this approach. However, I’d echo the above comments – there is something missing here around completing the circle through information provision back up to YFI holders. YFI holders can’t properly enact their role in this structure without such information.

This could be as simple as each yTeam committing to a sensible cycle of information sharing (e.g, weekly in some cases or quarterly in others) as a quid-pro-quo for their delegated power.

Alternatively, a more structured approach would be to treat the delegation of information reporting responsibilities in the same way as the delegation of decision-making powers. This may work well for the more important areas such as financial reporting or vault performance monitoring, although is perhaps overkill in other areas.


'Nuff said. :sunglasses: :+1: Good to go as is – the finer details, future teams, suggestions and reporting can be determined by the working teams themselves (together with the community in multiple new forum posts/channels). This proposal is more than sufficient for our initial structure.

Two future teams to consider:
1.) yCommunity or yGov - let’s not kid ourselves. **Managing the gov/dao community, ** ie. adequately reporting to the community, engaging forum posts, onboarding new community members to our chats and creating explainers on how voting/gov works, planning Governance 2.1x…is a full-time job. yOps already has their hands full coordinating contributors/signers and are internal; we need an external facing team to communicate, organize and engage the community in governance, and to be a bridge between the community/holders and yTeams. (Could be nested as a sub-team under yOps or its own)

2.) yMarketing or yGrow - We need a legit growth marketing team. We’ve outgrown the meme train and it’s time to think about long-term strategies as we grow . To attract, educate and build loyalty for the next generation of mainstream users and institutional clients–and to attract partners. This is everything from educational sites, to pitch decks, website messaging, Discord/Telegram/newsletter strategy, comms calendar, PR (journalist relationships/crisis comms etc), and events (conferences, clubhouse, etc.)…of course to dank memes and merch (ySocks jk). In a broader sense, this could also include Business Development (ie. yVault x Coinbase partnership or CB education course, government treasury vault for city of miami etc.). This is also a tricky one due to our past history with marketing…and our cultural DNA to not engage in shilling. It’s a balance, but it must be done. At the very least, start with education and communication. The community will figure out the memes and shilling on their own, but let’s get the core materials and messaging right. Just like the dev roadmap, we need a strategic marketing roadmap.

Consider when we have $30B+ TVL and 1000x more community members. Our vaults can scale relatively easily, but our community comms/marketing/education/gov isn’t scalable through code; we need dedicated teams to help scale our growing community and relieve the burden from our devs.


A yGov/yCommunity team, for example, could help organize a quarterly/monthly clubhouse call with the community and help summarize reports from the various teams. Each yTeam is so busy working on their priorities and as teams grow larger it gets more and more difficult to schedule/prioritize reporting and community chats without a dedicated owner to nag everyone and make it happen. :sweat_smile:

1 Like

Man, that’s a long one. But the examples more than make up for it.

Maybe we do need to define which yTeam has the power to declare yearn’s official bird, just as a nod to this proposal.


very well thought through. Nice one.

I knew this was a troll when i read this:

I’m agreeing with the scheduled call, but very against clubhouse as the medium.


Discord now has a clubhouse feature so we could use that sometime.

1 Like

We have a weekly sync with aggregated notes published here:


Never knew…

Very useful, as a first iteration just a little more detail on the points plus publicising this (weekly discussion thread here for Qs?) would deal with my point above. Don’t want to burden with unnecessary reporting, but do feel holders need a bit more info in order to fulfil their role in Gov2.0

I congratulate for the proposal. It seems very well written and highly innovative to me.

One of the claims is that in Yearn hierarchy does not exist. According to Yearn’s Manifesto “Nobody has authority over anyone else”. Actually, this is not entirely true as in the outlined structures veto-powers are – although temporarily – attributed to the Multisig. Moreover, yOps has the power to ratify yTeam Members and to change signers of other yTeams.

I am not against these “special powers”, as I think that every organization needs to grant powers in order to control and to coordinate the common activity, especially where powers are delegated, as in our community. To better coordinate the activity, for the future one could think about adding an additional board composed by representatives of the yTeams (one Member of every yTeam). This board could be consulted by the Multisig and the yOps with respect to strategic decisions. This could grant more cohesion among the teams, without harming flexibility and innovation.

I find this sentence a bit misleading: “Through rough consensus, YFI holders govern de facto rather than de jure ”.

In the Yearn protocol the distinction between de facto and de jure simply does not exist. The basis of the governance 2.0 is a social contract, ratified through a vote. This will undeniably be the law of Yearn, a kind of material constitution. In the blockchain world it is beautiful to state that everything is run by code, by technology, etc. I really appreciate when you frankly write “Although the promise of fully on-chain and trustless governance is alluring, we are not there yet. Behind every DAO implementation, there is a group of trusted contributors”. Through this proposal we are setting the rules ( de jure ).

At any rate, according to the proposed structure, I think that instead of distinguishing between the facto and the jure one could say that YFI holders do not directly govern the protocol. They are able to control, propose, vote, etc.: as usually do citizens in a country. In this respect, the proposed governance system seems to escape from the structure of a corporation and reassemble more the one of a State, in which the yTeams are kind of Ministries. The difference is that our community is small and token holders have powerful means to influence the governance.

Said this, I fully support the proposal and I am thankful for such an enormous contribution.


Terrific proposal. Yearn has one of the best templates for decentralizing operations and treasury spending. How can I get involved with one of the yTeams? I have experience working on asset allocation, spending, and reporting with DAO treasuries. I would love to contribute to Yearn, possibly on the yFarm or yBudget team.


Great proposal, well thought out. If and when this is executed will be an awesome way to leverage the great community we have here with yearn. Combine with coordinape and could be exciting. Cheers to future of France asset managers :no_mouth:

so who wants to ratify yOnboarding?

1 Like

Awesome! We always need people to help out and if anyone wants to know what they can do, they can always dm the mods on here, telegram, or discord. Sent you a dm to see how you can best get involved.

1 Like

Fair points, @Eagle . Personally I do not consider “social contracts” to be de jure because there is no clear enforcement or remedies mechanism. This doesn’t mean that there is no possibility of enforcing performance or remedying breaches–just that doing so depends on moral suasion and power jockeying rather than on a legalistic mechanism backed by the threat of state coercion (such as it is). In some situations, social contracts may even have sharper teeth than legal ones, but that doesn’t mean they are legal contracts.

Thanks for the reply @lex_node. I understand your point. You basically consider everything de facto because state law does not apply. My idea is that we create law here in exercising our autonomy. Discussing about sources of law on Ethereum would be very exciting, but not of interest for the forum :slight_smile:
If there is a kind of Yearn legal team, I would be more than happy to be part of it and give the maximum of my support!

Snapshot vote is live!

:ballot_box: Vote Here

Very interesting; kudos to tracheopteryx and lex_node for their thought leadership here. Certainly in favor of the proposal. One question though - it appears there are two groups which have the authority to spend money: the YFI holders (via treasury appropriation) and the yBudget team. Are these not in contention? Or is the yBudget allocation determined by the YFI holders?

1 Like

Hey all, thanks for the comments and warm reception for these ideas. I’ve been floored by how positive the response has been, and so excited to keep working on this.

I want to respond to a few of the ideas brought up in comments, on twitter, and telegram. First: this is an iterative process. We do not have everything figured out. There will be problems and gaps and scores of details to improve on. This structure is properly alive. I do not mean that figuratively. We are at the start of something here, something that needed a system like yearn to take seed and grow roots. Gov 2.0 is designed to be flexible and adapt as we iterate and improve the relationships and processes embodying it.


Gov 2 at this stage encompasses only on-chain decision making. There are far more decisions that happen off-chain, such as me choosing which words to write here, a designer picking a color for the v3 website, or the docs team choosing to migrate off of gitbook. I have been working on a framework for those kinds of decisions too, and hope to share in the near future, but for now I just want to clarify this proposal is scoped to on-chain only. That’s why there is no yBrand yTeam. We needed a starting point, and this is the best one. Anyone can form a team to work on anything for yearn, and if they encounter on-chain decisions they want to control, they can use gov 2 to write a YIP, ratify a yTeam, mint a new power, and get to work. For gated off-chain decision-making powers, like write access to yearn’s twitter, until we grow a better system, for now we must wade through the jungle of telegram groups, active doers, and the natural, shifting hierarchies that have emerged within yearn’s core.

Comms & Reporting

This has been such an interesting challenge for yearn since the start. In retrospect, it’s obvious. Of course a decentralized network of independent doers is going to be challenged in the output of coherent and simple narratives that clarify its multifarious workings in easily digestible format. We have tried so many things! We have docs, newsletters, active twitter accounts, published meeting notes, and more. But we haven’t cracked this yet. Sure, defi is by its nature fast moving and hard to model, but that’s a wonderful challenge! We can do better, and we will.

I welcome ideas. Beyond the above, we are actively discussing full-time marketing and comms roles with a few candidates.

For now, should this YIP pass, it will be up to each yTeam to communicate their process to the larger community. Should YFI holders feel a yTeam is not communicating well enough, they have a few levers to pull. They can raise the concern on telegram, twitter, discord, or the forum. They can do a YSP to suggest a better reporting system. Or they can do a YDP to remove power from an underperforming yTeam.

Spending Money

Think of this like multiple signers on a checking account. I don’t see a need to limit expenses to one organ, multiple powers can access the treasury for the various needs of yearn. If conflicts arise, we will discuss them. For instance, if someone does a YIP to spend 100M on a new project, the yBudget team would likely weigh in to explain how this would affect their budgeting, and then should it pass, they would have less money to work with. Each organ adapting to the needs of the others.

We are already seeing people propose new yTeams, for example yWaifu. If gov 2 passes, then YFI holders could vote to ratify yWaifu. But a team does not need to be ratified into a yTeam to spend money – YFI holders or yBudget can allocate money to any group for any purpose. If YFI holders want yWaifu to have a specific, on-chain decision-making power, then they would need to do a YIP to create that power and delegate it to yWaifu. I don’t see a need for this group to have a specific on-chain power, but I haven’t thought a ton about it yet. If yBudget allocated a recurring budget to yWaifu to curate waifu art, they could get that budget as a monthly payment to an EOA wallet to do with as they please, or they could be asked to submit payments to the multisig, and both systems would be under the supervision of yBudget and YFI holders in general.

(And fwiw, I am against the continued asymmetric sexualization of female bodies via anime characters but would love to see diverse and more interesting anime art created.)

Next Steps

Should this YIP pass, the next steps will be to onboard the initial set of yTeams, designate their signers, and get rolling. As described in the proposal, there are already people doing this work in emergent teams, what we will need to do is just better organize and define all that in alignment with the spec. Then we shall push the buttons and pull the levels and steer this ship under new clarity, charting a better course through these murky waters.


This YIP has passed.
Learn more about our voting rules in YIP-55.


This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.