The Yearn Finance community has been discussing expanding the supply of YFI as a way to compensate the decentralized finance (DeFi) platform’s de facto staffers. The vote went live on the web app Snapshot on Jan. 28 and ended today at 18:00 UTC (1 p.m. ET).
Yearn Finance is a collectively designed robo-advisor for yield that is fast becoming a portal into all of DeFi. It’s governed by the token YFI, which is worth slightly more than $30,000, as of this writing.
There’s a total of 30,000 YFI in existence, per the project’s original “fair launch.” If the new tokens were minted right now and had no impact on the market capitalization, then one would expect the value of YFI to drop to something like $25,000 (meaning the new tokens would be worth $167 million), but these things are not predictable.
The final vote to increase the supply was 1,670 YFI for versus 331 against. The quorum for a vote to pass is 20% of the YFI staked to governance, according to Yearn’s documentation. CoinDesk has not been able to determine if an adequate number of YFI holders voted.
Final changes are approved by six of the nine members of the Yearn multisig, which is something like the DeFi equivalent of a board of directors.
Under the proposal, 33% of the new tokens would be set aside for key contributors. Which contributors the allocation would be for and how much each would get is unknown. There will be some sort of staking set up so that contributors only get their allocations for sticking around, but none of that has been decided.
The other 66% will be set aside as a treasury, for everything from protocol acquisition to further development.
The decision marks a clear shift for the team, which accrued a unique amount of buzz for eschewing the convention of setting aside governance tokens for insiders.
The authors of the newly-passed proposal wrote:
The community remains somewhat divided on the initiative. As the vote indicates, though, most YFI holders are for it.
On the supporter side, user zkwaffles wrote:
On the opposition, user laur_science argued the proposal wasn’t specific enough: