RFC: Replace Yam Rebase Mechanism

Theres another option I didn’t see mentioned. YAM could adapt the basis mechanisms to accomplish everything the current rebase and treasury is doing, minus the issues of not being erc20 compliant.

Would have to give it more thought but YAM could be the seniorage shares and a new token(Y2K) could be the pegged coin.

*actual name dependant on what type of peg, year, currency, etc

I have considered whether I want to post this here or as a new post. In the end I decided to put it here since I don’t want it to appear that I am making a competing proposal. This is almost the same proposal with concessions to those who want to keep the rebasing mechanism.

Modified Rebase Removal

Basic Summary

  1. We stop the Rebase Now.
  2. Create a rebasing token experimentation lab with treasury funds.*
  3. Provide funding from the treasury for research into an improved token and treasury funding mechanism.*

.*points 2 and 3 can be agreed upon in principal and exact amounts can be determined in additional proposals

Here is the original RFC about rebasing: RFC: Replace Yam Rebase Mechanism


Support for removing the rebasing mechanism seems to be strong in the community, but with a few vocal opponents. The main opposition to the proposal is from people who feel like the experimental nature of the rebasing mechanism has not been given a chance to play out. Another opposition point is that the 3% inflation rate that is proposed is arbitrary and further study into the way we fund our treasury is warranted. Both of these factions can be appeased with promises of funding from the treasury.

We can stop the rebasing mechanism now, with the understanding that the funding mechanism for the treasury, as well as the overall tokenomics and economic model of YAM are still being studied. YAM holders are incentivized to find a funding mechanism that is better than the status quo of no funding via inflation. At the same time, research on rebasing can be funded as part of the YAM factory and new rebasing tokens and designs can be worked on.


The most difficult part in the governance process is determining whether consensus has been reached on contentious proposals. This is especially important in YAM, since governance by fork is severely hampered by an un-forkable treasury. As the YAM treasury is central to the value proposition of the YAM DAO and the YAM token, the only option for disgruntled YAM holders is to suck it up or to exit.

With proposals that are contentious, this is a losing proposition for all sides if it means the losing token holders will be disgruntled or exit. This should drive all YAM holders toward better understanding each other’s positions and some kind of compromise.

This modification to the rebasing RFC is an attempt to modify that proposal in a way that incorporates the desires of multiple stakeholders. In fully pausing the rebase mechanism and the treasury funding, those who worry about the value that the treasury adds and dislike the treasury sales will get a reprieve from them and time for the treasury to prove itself.

It is then up to those who see value in the treasury to build that value. This is through products that generate revenues that go back to the treasury, but also potentially through the design of a new funding mechanism that YAM governance can choose to implement. If that mechanism is not deemed valuable enough by the community then it won’t pass. If we can’t convince people why funding the treasury with inflation is valuable once it has been turned off then we probably shouldn’t fund the treasury that way. Otherwise we can always vote in 3% inflation in the future. Or just do 3% now and fund additional research.

So let’s use some of the value in the treasury to make more value. Funding a rebasing arm of YAM Factory could lead to new experiments and revenues to the treasury. This should be a decent amount of the treasury. I propose 10% (~$300,000) but that is a pretty arbitrary number, and if people like this proposal, this should get further discussion. We could also earmark some percentage of future revenues toward rebasing research. I nominate KW710 as our first rebasing mad scientist.

At a much smaller scale, I think it is in the DAO’s interest to fund further research into the funding mechanism for the DAO and the tokenomics in general. Questions around the value and purpose of YAM will still continue after decisions are made about rebasing. We need to figure out an economic system for the YAM token and ecosystem that benefits all YAM holders. I propose that we set aside funding to have an outside report written up to do analysis on our current system and proposals on a new system. Delphi Digital have done reports like this for multiple other projects. Here is a report they did for the dxDAO. They have also been working with dxDAO to research their token model and bonding curve.

Pros: I think there will be less unhappy YAM holders. Incentives are more aligned. Funding toward rebasing and funding could generate significant return if successful.

Cons/Risks: Removing treasury funding risks never being able to turn if back on again if it can’t pass governance. Treasury funds allocated toward rebasing research and token research may not lead to any significant return.


Developer light to implement. The scaling factor would be fixed at a specified time and the rebase function deactivated by calling this function:


Making it so no address can execute rebase

Details regarding funding of the rebase research arm and funding mechanism can be made in principle with a general range of funding approved and finalized in later proposals.

Poll to Measure Sentiment

Do you support removing the rebase mechanism?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

Do you support removing the rebase if there is no treasury funding mechanism in place for now?
  • yes
  • no, we should have 3% inflation
  • no, we should have something else though

0 voters

Do you support removing the rebase if NO funding is given to future rebasing projects?
  • yes
  • no

0 voters

Do you support removing the rebase if funding is given to new Rebasing projects?
  • yes
  • no

0 voters

Do you support removing rebase if NO funding is given to design better YAM tokenomics?
  • yes
  • no

0 voters

Do you support removing rebase if funding is given to design better YAM tokenomics?
  • yes
  • no

0 voters

How much money should go toward rebasing research?
  • < $100,000
  • $100,000 - $300,000
  • .> $300,000

0 voters

How much money should go toward tokenomics research?
  • none
  • just enough for a 3rd party report
  • more than that

0 voters

1 Like

i think this is a very good discussion. Should we put the cancel rebase in the snapshot?

i think some of the voting Ross putting there are kind of misleading.

Something like “Do you support removing the rebase if funding is given to new Rebasing projects.”

Those two things shouldn’t be bound together. Removing rebase is one thing. Funding new rebasing projects is another thing. This vote is kind of biased, people want to remove the rebase, but then they have to accept to fund new rebase projects.

I pretty sure people will be interested in a rebase project. However, it should be voted in different thread but not mixing with the current proposal.

I think this is kind of bad. People want different things, then people will bring more discussions to make things endless. We should break down proposals, and move forward instead of discussion.

1 Like

I am including them because I want those who think that YAM should continue doing experiments with rebasing tokens to have a say. I’m trying to find out what actions are acceptable to the widest swath of the community. This is not a proposal that is going to snapshot now. We are building consensus and gathering information. The polls are an easy way to vote, but if you have a nuanced opinion please write about it.

If you want to keep the rebase in the main YAM token, you should vote no to all 3 questions about removing rebase. If you only support removing the rebase if there is additional funding for rebasing and treasury funding then please vote no in the first question and yes in the others.

If you want something else, like keeping the rebase and funding rebasing research, then please respond and I can add an option. If you have other issues with the polls, please let everyone know in a comment.

Discussion is moving forward.

Your poll question might be a bit off from this.

I have added new polls to my post. If you feel like these new polls would change how you would have voted in the existing polls, please let me know.

Why would rebase research cost a 6 figure sum though ?

What does the research actually consist of ?

Would only make sense if you factor in development costs.

yes, my assumption would be that this would include development costs for any new projects and funding for audits, deployment costs, etc. Exact amounts can be further discussed in those specific proposals. Maybe this one should only outline what the scope of that rebase R&D lab would entail and worry less about how much money?

I am looking for feedback. I want to hear from @Diesel, @Demosthenes, @nonstopTheo, @Cryptojoe, and @d474l355 who all expressed concerns about removing the rebasing mechanism. Do the changes that I have made in my post above assuage your concerns or do you still dislike the proposal?

Hey Ross - yes sure. Just to clarify the sticky points:

  1. Rebase and steady price: Does YAM aspire to be “stable” and pegged to $1ish? Is this a hard criteria or up for grabs?
  2. Treasury: With the upcoming pipeline, what’s required to execute and have “dry powder”? Looking for ballpark number, ie is $3mln enough or is it better to have $5mln in reserve?
  3. Substantial change vs incremental change:
  • Substantial change: The rebase mechanism is entirely paused, torn into pieces, re-assembled
  • Incremental change: We merely change the rebasing specs.
    — Negative rebases will be stopped. The treasury can be used to defined a “floor price”. Right now, YAM’s mc is 3.5x treasury. IMO that’s very low and we are close to the floor.
    — Positive rebases: Different options here. It could be something like a weekly rebase. Or a rebase that takes a moving average as the numerator (vs currently $1.05). Or have a bonding curve with a specific shape.

I like the idea with the research effort and having a mad chief scientist. Stumbled over a project today that’s got a very funky token design (xvix.finance). This space is evolving so rapidly that new iterations of design components pop up weekly.


The middle of the road approach would definitely assuage my concerns. I could get behind removing the rebase as it stands as long as there is planned development for a rebasing alternative. I’ll be 1 less dissenting YAM holder, if we can do this.



rebase机制还是要的,但是不能稀释人们的股份占比,可以通过国库创建一个新的rebase token(不稀释占比)分给持有者;但是现有的yam需要停止rebase,并每年3%膨胀给国库;这样就可以达到解除耦合。

For those of you who need to post in another language, please make sure that you are including an english translation of your post. This can be done with google translate if you have access. If there are other translation websites that work better within your nation, please use those.

对于需要用其他语言发布的人,请确保包括您发布的英文翻译。 如果您有访问权限,可以使用Google翻译完成。 如果您所在国家/地区的其他翻译网站效果更好,请使用这些网站。

Here is a translation of @hong19 's 2 posts above

Deleting the rebase mechanism is killing the original intention. The original intention of yam is to become a stable currency instead of an ordinary token. The market scale of the currency is not comparable to ordinary token equity tokens. The visionary members of the community should be aware of this; when yam When the scale of is large enough, the price fluctuation caused by rebase is far from significant, just like throwing a stone into a bowl of water will fluctuate greatly, but when throwing a stone into the lake, the impact is small, if you delete the rebase Mechanism, I will sell all my yam, deleting the rebase mechanism is a stupid and short-sighted behavior.

The rebase mechanism is still necessary, but it cannot dilute the proportion of people’s shares. You can create a new rebase token (non-diluted proportion) through the treasury to distribute to the holders; but the existing yam needs to stop rebase and expand by 3% every year To the treasury; in this way, decoupling can be achieved.

谢谢,但或许可以应该考虑一下我的意见。thanks, but maybe should accept my suggestion

如果删除rebase机制,就必须通过国库创建一个新的rebase token按比例分发给yam持有者,否则初心就变了,从成为稳定币货币变成权益代币,两者的规模一个天一个地,相差很大If you delete the rebase mechanism, you must create a new rebase token through the treasury and distribute it to yam holders in proportion, otherwise the original intention will change, from becoming a stable currency to equity tokens, the scale of the two is one world at a time. A big difference

Yes, we hear this opinion: @ross has same idea:

I think the general community direction is there and the original proposal is the best

1 Like

Here are the snapshots for these proposals: Please go and vote!!!

for god’s sake please remove that f. rebase mechaniszm and inflation! people got rekt because of launch bug, them migration, then rebase, then gas fees etc.