Draft Proposal: Compensation for Core Team & Contributors

I think buying YAM with the treasury YUSD is a better solution. Which align all community interest, and also a use case for treasury.


The project is on track. This the next step to keep it on track and accomplish the project’s goals. It takes a ton of time to work on this project, and without some kind of compensation for that time, reality will kick in and necessitate splitting that time with other income generating activities. Delaying this step will only slow this project down and make it less likely to achieve success in the future.

100% agree with this idea

100% agree with this idea

I support that the core developer or contributors should be compensated.
But the proposal can be modified.
First the initial compensation is small
,considering if this proposal is passed, because of three years vesting.

So I suggest that the initial small compensation can be yam that treasure buying from market. Then We can set a rate of treasure holding yam for latter compensation. I think this is more reasonable!

1 Like

If this kind of modification were to be incorporated, the treasury reserve itself wouldn’t be holding the YAM intended as compensation for the core team since it would potentially be at risk due to future ragequit() functionality, investment risk, etc. It would need to be deposited in a smart contract essentially acting as an escrow and allowing the tokens to vest safely without the risk of them being repurposed in the future by other governance actions.

Can we increase the treasure rate from 5% to 6%. And The increased 1% can be set as compensation, which can be transferred to an compensation account immediately when rebase occurred.

At the beginning of the project, the team promised to issue fairly, not to reserve shares, not to issue additional shares, and later you asked for additional shares, which was clearly a breach of commitment and no credit at all. If the additional shares were implemented, it would be a very bad start.We don’t need to set a precedent of dishonesty, as some of the money in the Treasury can be used as a development fund to solve the problem perfectly


Hi, @Wigglez! Finally this is being discussed intensively. YAM community needs this to best forward the YAM Protocol. Without dedicated teams, core and contributing, YAM’s MC value will slowly go on a death spiral until holders will only rely on the YAM Treasury value.

However, this is where @feddas and @ross were discussing about the portfolio needed for YAM Treasury subsets and its % allocation. Say yam community is making now a subset dedicated for the compensation of the core and contributing team, future employees, etc., then we are determining now its % allocation. What’s the portfolio of this subset? Are we compensating them in full-blast yUSD? We don’t want that 'coz that would not align their mission for the YAM Protocol. Are we allocating this subset in full-send yam token? I mean, yam community do trust the core and contributing team, yet, it will give them huge voting power. Remember 1% YAM BoU from the total supply can ratify proposal; 4% can change, as quorum on-chain, the YAM Protocol.

It boils down that this project launched as ‘fairly’ distributed tokens. Thus, minting new tokens has forfeited already from its initial advocacy. We have the treasury and incentives currently for the LP, to align these incentives with the yam community, perhaps a combination of buyback and reducing the current incentive of the LP. In this way, yam community who held from this supply contraction gets the price appreciation from buyback and lesser dilution from LPers.

Would like to hear a feedback and digest more about how yam community outsource the % needed for this salary subset.


I don’t think we should try to release more yams at any time, which is unfair!

1 Like

I think 300k is more appropriate. If the ratio is too small, it will not provide incentives.

At current scalingFactor of 5.13x, basically all these numbers mean they are receiving 5x the amount of YAM.

So to be clear, at present it’s basically

  • 250k YAM
  • 500k YAM
  • 750k YAM
  • 1M YAM
  • 1.25M YAM
  • 1.5M YAM
1 Like

More discussion on this 3-year period would be beneficial.

I think there should be at least a 6 month cliff, maybe even 1 year. Really need to align incentives.

Something like 6 month cliff, and then vesting weighted more heavily towards the end is what makes the most sense to me.

Any of this numbers can be covered with the current treasury holdings…

Reading trough all the comments it seems community is pretty divided about the extra supply, it is something that had caused strong rejection in the past so I think we should at the very least have the option of using the treasury for the Core Team Rewards in the proposal.

I think everyone agrees that the Yam Market Cap will bleed if the team leaves @Wigglez, nonetheless it will also bleed if we keep minting in an already bleeding scenario. The good news is that everyone wants to reward the team, so this is something that will happen one way or another, which will make the team stay and keep working for YAM, it is just an issue of how to do it.

1 Like

my original thoughts regarding funding development through treasury vs printing can be found here, relating to the decision to eliminate the Community Fund proposed in V2 governance:

i think it’s helpful for thinking through this issue.

the tl;dr is that printing on an as needed basis was always a known option and is the best capital management strategy for the protocol imo

1 Like

@fewture I think this idea is interesting. It helps alleviate any short-term concerns of inflation or extra sell pressure (at least for 6 months). That’s sufficient time to recover (market cap) and prove that YAM is something special (insurance protocol, etc). So this idea is certainly worth exploring I think.

However I think the rest of the vesting should be linear, block by block.

Yup, I’m starting to believe for the actual snapshot page voting options, we should maybe remove the bottom option (50k YAM BoU) and add a few options that are higher (350k, 400k). As @ross shared the actual percentages on these numbers, I think we can compensate the core team even better and more fairly.

1 Like

It’s important to remember that this would be vested over three years. So the perceived voting power does not match reality.

But even so, once they are fully vested, the numbers that we’re talking about here do not give them disproportionate voting power. Taking a quick look at the YAM holders page (not counting LPs), there are plenty of other YAM token holders who have similar YAM holdings. And plenty more that are not on this list because they are LPing. So their voting power is not anything imbalanced. I’d much rather the core team have this voting power than some random whale who isn’t actively involved in the project. This is the core team we’re talking about, the people who are actively helping our YAM tokens grow in value.


I don’t think extra Yams should be minted for dev pay and dev fund it should come from treasury.
My proposal:

  1. Pay the current devs and on going supporters a flat rate for x months to be paid from the treasury according to their time commitment to the project.
  2. Set aside a small % of treasury for the core devs to directly manage and distribute without direct voting but just transparency reports. ie for things like creating new meme or small code audits simple stuff that doesn’t necessarily need entire community to be voted on.
  3. Setup bonus milestones for current employees being paid from #1

Things that I agree with:


Agreed. You have a very strong argument there. Now the real question is what will be the % allocation for this community/salary fund and how will the community would like to outsource this subset. I concur with @Chitty that unanimously the community signals a great response to compensate core and contributing team. This already includes future employees for the sustainability of the YAM Protocol.

How does the combination of Treasury buyback and lowering the LP incentives sound like? Anyway, whale LPers are just farming them massively, making them more of a whale than they are already. Worst case, small yam holders are being diluted heavily. At least if we are to compensate the teams that helped yam tokens grow its value… might as well align it with the community that supported the project and held through this supply contraction.

Minting additional yam tokens is a no-go. It defeats and forfeits the core advocacy of YAM as a fairly launched governance token farming.