Separate Rebasing and Treasury Funding Questions

The discussion of removing the rebasing mechanism and how we fund the treasury should be separate proposals. They are not necessarily dependent on each other and the proposed solution of 3% inflation is understudied.

Can we build a new mechanism that keeps the treasury funded autonomously and is fair to YAM holders? This is a separate question from “should we remove the rebasing mechanism”.

Combining these proposals risks creating a sub-par funding solution and either adding to developer overhead by requiring additional changes to the protocol down the line, or causing a lack of faith in our ability to create a credible policy that is vetted and not changed continuously.

This is not a new proposal. It is a request to clarify the existing RFC on rebasing located here: RFC: Replace Yam Rebase Mechanism

Removing rebasing and Treasury funding should be separate proposals
  • separate proposals
  • the same proposal

0 voters


This is an important question for sure! And I personally support separating the “Remove Rebase” and “Add 3% inflation” proposals. The original reason they were combined was that while discussing with other contributors and investors it was thought adding 3% inflation at a later date would be a harder discussion if the narrative around YAM became “fixed supply”… I feel we are almost the total opposite of “fixed supply” so it seemed this was an easy and small way to keep the flexible supply narrative intact while rebasing was removed.


I think the beauty of what we have right now is that funding is autonomous when the right conditions are met. At the same time, we automate donations to gitcoin. I will back something that does something similar: raises funds automatically, for us and the larger community.

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