YIP-57 “Funding Yearn’s Future”
First, I want to start off by saying that I have the utmost respect for much of the work that the Core Developers of Yearn contribute to the project. Yearn has been at the forefront of innovation in DeFi since its inception, pushing our entire industry forward. Vaults, earn, zap, and cover have truly inspired the rest of the DeFi.
That being said, the governance of Yearn has devolved into an absolute mockery. Recently, Operations Lead Banteg and the rest of the Yearn Core Developers proposed YIP-57 titled “Funding Yearn’s Future.” In YIP-57, Yearn’s Core Developers call for the printing of more YFI.
Note that this proposal was posted on Snapshot four days after another proposal was passed which called for the buyback of YFI on the open market to reward contributors.
I do not have a problem with the Yearn development team figuring out a way to incentivize future development. In fact, I completely agree with their desire to align incentives between contributors and the long term success of the project. Contributors to Yearn deserve to be rewarded YFI. For that reason, I am a huge proponent of proposals that pursue innovative buyback strategies and contributor reward programs.
Community already voted to burn mint key
What I have a major problem with is that the Yearn community already voted back in September to burn the mint key, which means that the community already voted that no more YFI should ever be printed. There was a long discussion about the burn back in September on the Yearn governance forum, with the sentiment being in overwhelming support of the burn. In fact, 93.12% of the YFI participating in the vote were for burning the mint key.
This upcoming vote shouldn’t even be entertained, as the mint key should have been burned.
I thought Yearn governance was supposed to be a decentralized autonomous organization, not a developer dictatorship as Banteg himself has claimed. Why wasn’t the previous vote by the Yearn community to burn the YFI mint key abided by?
The Yearn Core Development team completely disregarded the previous vote by the community. Originally, their excuse was that they were prioritizing other actions before getting to the burn. In reality, they decided that they knew better than the YFI community what was best. Clearly, in their infinite wisdom, they can pick and choose what votes by the YFI community should be counted and what votes should be disregarded.
Of course, when the YFI community votes to compensate these Core Developers at more than $150,000 a year, the Core Developers feel compelled to uphold these votes instead of completely disregard them.
Many DeFi teams have absolutely zero accountability to their token holders. Because of their control of the admin keys, or their close relationship with those who control the admin keys, the Core Developers of many DeFi projects can pick and choose what votes to abide by and and what votes should be disregarded. There is no decentralized governance; it is a complete charade.
If you want to call yourself a DAO and claim to have decentralized governance, you must either remove the admin key and have on-chain execution of votes or have systems in place that ensure that once a vote passes, the new changes outlined in the proposal are successfully executed.
Yearn removes previous vote to burn mint key from Snapshot front end
As disconcerting, the Yearn development team removed the originally passed vote of burning the mint key from the list of closed proposals on the Yearn Snapshot frontend page!
The Yearn development team is not being transparent about the fact that the community already voted to burn the mint key. Furthermore, the Yearn Core Developers are removing the proposals and votes they don’t like from public view, a common theme for certain DeFi projects.
Yearn governance needs to be revamped for the process to be taken seriously. You as a YFI token holder are clearly given no real rights. Rather than be a true governance token, currently YFI is just another shitcoin with no real value besides enriching those who farmed the project early and the current Core Developers. Yearn’s governance is completely centralized.
Until Yearn removes their admin key and sets up a governance process where each vote is automatically executed, or unless they set up governance processes that enable the community to hold Yearn Core Developers accountable, then their decentralized governance will continue to be a farce.
Join Coinmonks Telegram group and learn about crypto trading and investing
Also, Read
- What is a Flash loan?
- The Best Crypto Trading Bot | Grid Trading
- 3Commas Review | Pionex Review | Coinrule review
- AAX Exchange Review | Deribit Review |FTX Crypto Exchange Review
- NGRAVE ZERO review
- Bybit Exchange Review | Bityard Review | Interdax Review
- 3Commas vs Cryptohopper
- The Best Bitcoin Hardware wallet | BitBox02 Review
- Ledger vs Ngrave
- Crypto Copy Trading Platforms | Bityard copy trading
- ledger nano s vs x
- Vauld Review | YouHodler Review | BlockFi Review
- The Best Crypto Tax Software | CoinTracking Review
- Best Crypto Lending Platforms
- Ledger Nano S vs Trezor one vs Trezor T vs Ledger Nano X
- BlockFi vs Celsius | Hodlnaut Review
- Bitsgap review | Quadency Review
- Ellipal Titan Review | SecuX Stone Review
- BlockFi Review | Earn up to 8.6% interests in your Crypto
- DEX Explorer and Blockchain APIs
- Crypto arbitrage guide: How to make money as a beginner
- Best Crypto Charting Tool
- What are the best books to learn about Bitcoin?
