Yam Protocol Multichain

[ethe]

Introduction

With an ever evolving DeFi space, we are building and experimenting with new technologies, constantly emphasizing stability, security and decentralization. We trust the future of crypto and DeFi, and envision big role for layer 2 solutions on Ethereum. Currently we live on the Ethereum mainnet, however we see significant benefits from operating on different chains at the same time.

What are L1 and L2?

Layer 1

Layer 1 (L1) refers to the base blockchain, and is typically the name used to represent a main blockchain network protocol like Ethereum. The name is derived from its relation with Layer 2 scaling solutions such as state channels, rollups, nested blockchains, and plasma side chains. L2 connects to L1 to boost its scalability and transaction efficiency. L1 blockchains are often referred to as the parent or root chain.

Layer 2

Layer 2 (L2) is a network or technology that operates on top of an underlying blockchain protocol L1 to improve scalability and efficiency. This category of solutions involves offloading a portion of the transactional weight of a blockchain protocol to an adjacent system architecture, which then performs the majority of the network operations and reports back to the main blockchain to finalize the results.

Why go multichain?

Yam has always focused on security, stability and improvements, and moving forward into the future we see scalability is as much important. While users and workloads increases on Ethereum, we believe it is time to move forward and construct an upgraded governance model on multiple L2 network to exist and operate all in sync with one another, this will result in a wider reach and provide flexibility for token holders on many aspects, along with lower gas fees and extended accessibility to interact and build on other chains. Highlighting few key points benefits below.

Yam Protocol L2 Benefits

• Cross chain protocol governance
• Cheap gas fees
• Faster transactions
• Wider product and user reach
• Extended network participations, partnerships and possibilities
• More decentralization
• First of a kind

Overview

We are building and upgrading the very core layers of the protocol, the “Yam Protocol”, which will then give the public a wide range of options to build their ideas and applications on the top of.

E.

[feddas]

In order to fully evaluate your proposal some sort of schedule of approximate cost and time would be necessary. This is obviously a large endeavor where depending on the cost benefit and time required to complete it might make sense allocate resources to highest priority.

[ross]

I don’t support anything “multi-chain”. here is why:

It Misunderstands what YAM is

My work on the re-org has lead me to the following conclusion about what YAM is: It is a mechanism to connect people who want funding to build things with the treasury funds that the DAO has available. Token holders determine whether they wish to spend funds on the proposed projects and then hold the project members accountable for doing what they promise via distribution (or withholding) of the promised funds. This idea doesn’t need YAM to exist on multiple chains. It needs YAM to be able to effectively decide upon funding decisions and distribute funds.

1 Chain is Better

The above idea is easier to implement if it only happens in one place: Less overhead, less confusion. If someone want’s funding they come to us. If someone wants to participate in deciding on who gets funded they buy tokens and participate where our governance contracts exist. If we use fully permissionless and public platforms to do this (as we do currently, and as we could do with 1 rollup) then it is easy for anyone to participate. Having things happen on multiple chains does not make the process better, but instead makes it harder.

It Doesn’t solve our core problem

YAM’s problem isn’t that people don’t have access to it. It’s that they don’t care about it. They don’t understand it or see why they should participate. Spending time and effort to make something “more accessible” when no one is asking for this accessibility is not a good use of resources. Making it multi-chain doesn’t solve the problem that people don’t care. This won’t make them care.

I do support moving to a L2 (preferably an optimistic rollup)

My responses below in bold.

Yam Protocol L2 Benefits

• Cross chain protocol governance (adds no real value, adds significant risk and complexity)
• Cheap gas fees (still true on a single L2)
• Faster transactions (still true on a single L2)
• Wider product and user reach (this is a misunderstanding of what our “product” is and how it is used)
• Extended network participations, partnerships and possibilities (I just don’t think this is true. all these same partnerships exist on a single well developed rollup)
• More decentralization (how so?)
• First of a kind (not true, there are plenty of other multi-chain governance projects. See DXDAO)

YAM can be multi-chain without us doing any work

There are lots of bridges that allow tokens to be transferred between chains. We don’t need to build out our own bridge infrastructure to do it. Yes, if we want to deploy parts of the treasury on other chains then we need to be able to message between them and potentially deploy contracts that control funds on those chains. But unless we actually have a reason to do this (which we currently do not) why spend time, effort, and money on it? It seems to me like a solution looking for a problem.

More Attack Surface:

Another reason why this multi-chain endeavor is a risky and potentially even a bad idea is it adds significant new attack surfaces to everything we do. It requires that we understand the security parameters of each chain individually and monitor them. Not to mention that other chains may have subtle breaking features that cause unexpected problems. See the Agave and Hundred Finance re-entrancy exploits that occurred on gnosisChain due to insecure implementations of bridged tokens that went unnoticed. The more chains and bridged tokens, the larger the surface area for problems like this.

No amount of bug bounties shrinks this potential problem.

[chilly]

Hey E!

Is this a proposal to build out onto other Layer 2s?

Multi-chain as expanding infrastructure onto other Layer 2 solely - not bridging to other Layer 1st.

Agreed with Feddas that we need time / cost as well as more detail on which Layer 2s to build onto and on what timeline!

Thank you

[ethe]

@feddas

In order to fully evaluate your proposal some sort of schedule of approximate cost and time would be necessary. This is obviously a large endeavor where depending on the cost benefit and time required to complete it might make sense allocate resources to highest priority.

yes i am preparing things currently, ill be mentioning you once its ready at Yam Core Development

@ross

It Misunderstands what YAM is
My work on the re-org has lead me to the following conclusion about what YAM is: It is a mechanism to connect people who want funding to build things with the treasury funds that the DAO has available. Token holders determine whether they wish to spend funds on the proposed…

while i appreciate your writing and spent efforts on the grants for funding projects, this has nothing to do with what yam is or isnt, nor with what i am building out here, the multichain feature will work with any idea, it is a core base feature which eventually will be taken advantage of to opening a wide range of possibilities for yams future, yam builders and even yam projects on mainnet and on other chains

@ross

1 Chain is Better
The above idea is easier to implement if it only happens in one place: Less overhead, less confusion. If someone want’s funding they come to us. If someone wants to participate in deciding on who gets funded they buy tokens and participate where our governance contracts exist. If we use fully permissionless and public platforms to do this (as we do currently, and as we could do with 1 rollup) then it is easy for anyone to participate. Having things happen on multiple chains does not make the process better, but instead makes it harder.

yes multichain is complex but that doesnt mean we dont go for it because of that, and i dont see this as an overhead for any user, for interactions: everything will be just right to make it very simple for the users to interact with, for participation: its the same, for project funding: its the same (with even more options for builders of different networks, they will just work directly with what they have there, everything else will be taken care of by the yam protocol), so once everything is set there will be even more participation

@ross

It Doesn’t solve our core problem
YAM’s problem isn’t that people don’t have access to it. It’s that they don’t care about it. They don’t understand it or see why they should participate. Spending time and effort to make something “more accessible” when no one is asking for this accessibility…

correct nor the idea behind this is to solve an existential problem, problems will be solved from the pieces worked on outside of this feature, however this is an awesome feature for yam to have which i believe many users are attracted to and thats the point, defi is evolving, this feature is planned to be on the top of what i am working on at Yam Core Development

@ross

YAM can be multi-chain without us doing any work
There are lots of bridges that allow tokens to be transferred between chains. We don’t need to build out our own bridge infrastructure to do it. Yes, if we want to deploy parts of the treasury on other chains

i think youre missing some points, its not just having the token or treasury somewhere, but the core of yam thats being developed will have governance structure with the ability to work on all the chains in sync together on deployments, so its not just going and clicking some buttons to make it happen through an existent bridge

@ross

More Attack Surface:
Another reason why this multi-chain endeavor is a risky and potentially even a bad idea is it adds significant new attack surfaces to everything we do. It requires that we understand the security parameters of each chain individually and monitor them. Not to mention that other chains may have subtle breaking features that cause unexpected problems. See the Agave and Hundred Finance re-entrancy exploits that occurred on gnosisChain due to insecure implementations of bridged tokens that went unnoticed. The more chains and bridged tokens, the larger the surface area for problems like this.
No amount of bug bounties shrinks this potential problem.

i hear your concerns but that is no excuse to not be on other chains, all the contracts will be audited and any network from the first will be chosen by the community through voting, also i have planned out all the security measures for the non mainnet networks, there going to be a whole structure in place to protect each network and specially the connections of the networks to each other

@chilly

Is this a proposal to build out onto other Layer 2s?
Multi-chain as expanding infrastructure onto other Layer 2 solely - not bridging to other Layer 1st.

yes but it is not only to build on L2, its more than that in terms of how things operates with each other: its for yam to exist on an L2 voted on by the community while in the same time existing on mainnet and to have everything in sync with each other, so think of it as a protocol thats operating everywhere yam token holders wants it to, brings so much possibilities for yam, its users, contributors, and partners!

@chilly

Agreed with Feddas that we need time / cost as well as more detail on which Layer 2s to build onto and on what timeline!

for “which network?” it will be decided on through voting by yam token holders
and yes still in the works, ill mention you once the new schedule and timeline are ready on Yam Core Development!

[ross]

@ethe

correct nor the idea behind this is to solve an existential problem, problems will be solved from the pieces worked on outside of this feature, however this is an awesome feature for yam to have which i believe many users are attracted to and thats the point

This right here is the crux of why I don’t think this is a good idea. It is a complex technical project that doesn’t actually solve the problems that the DAO faces, one of which is our inability to complete complex technical projects!

Would people think a fully working multi-chain governance system is cool? Yes, I’m sure they would. But given the DAO’s track record for completing complex projects like this, what are the chances that we are actually able to build a fully working multi-chain governance system that works well, on time and on budget? And what are we not working on to do it?

You know what else I’m sure people will think is cool? A website without broken links, a working treasury dashboard, that lets you delegate to yourself if you are both LPing and have YAM in your wallet. A YAM token that costs less to interact with because it doesn’t have a bunch of old logic in the contract. A contract that lets them earn yield from the treasury. A contract to build protocol owned liquidity. All of these items seem more pressing and important than multi-chain.

I know that you have mentioned many of these things in your other proposal, and if we can get all the other things fixed and upgraded then by all means we can start working on some multi-chain strategy. But with so many other issues to deal with and more important things to fix, multi-chain just seems like a distraction that we should shelve until we get the other stuff done.

It is dessert, and we haven’t eaten our vegetables yet.

[ethe]

@ross

I know that you have mentioned many of these things in your other proposal, and if we can get all the other things fixed and upgraded then by all means we can start working on some multi-chain strategy.

Perfect, thats what im working towards.
Cheer up and stay positive!