YIP-10: Change the Delegator Reward Distribution

Amongst all the confusion this has left may Delegators bitter and opportunists have capitalized on this confusion. Communication was poor and i question whether this was a strategy itself. I think sticking to BTC may be the best choice moving forward.

1 Like

Bribery of election is a crime, against any reward or compensation。This is a bad example. In the future, people will use money to buy votes

You are a greedy person

"Let us be crystal clear:

Delegators would get SIGNIFICANTLY MORE REWARDS that those who remain in the Uniswap pool would receive.

Added bonus: avoiding impermanent loss risk"

There is no ambiguity in that post. The team didn’t promise to recoup economic loss (i.e. free-market price changes). The team didn’t promise to reward 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, etc… The team didn’t promise to reward as many YAM’s as were required to delegate. The team clearly promised to give delegators significantly more rewards than they would have received had they stayed in the Uniswap pool. That means delegators rewards are directly tied to the opportunity loss of the Uniswap pool. The opportunity loss for 12 hours was a total of 107,000 YAMS. The team is paying out that amount plus an additional 50+%. And let’s be honest, the majority of delegators jumped out of the Uniswap pool in the last 1 or 2 hours. That means the delegate rewards are closer to 300-400% higher for delegators than if they would have stayed in the Uniswap pool.

We should only be overriding YIP-2’s delegate rewards if it doesn’t meet/exceed what was promised. After reviewing the tweet verbiage and reviewing the YIP-2 rewards there is zero doubt that the YIP-2 rewards completely fulfills the teams promise. Passing a proposal to triple?!?! YIP-2’s rewards is nothing more than a cash grab. The wider YAM community and DeFi community will see it that way also.

1 Like

Bribery will bring yamv3 into the abyss. It is reasonable to propose to cancel all voting rewards, lobby and advocate voting, but bribery is absolutely not good. It should not be advocated to get a vote by promising money,

1 Like

We can tell from here that there are true believer of YAM who willingful to #saveYAM , and one who just delegated only for the sake of their personal profits.
Personally i dont see anything wrong with these two, but lets not giving too much attention and emotion for this issue, just let the vote decide.
Those who keep demanding for more rewards are not here for this project IMO, they are just bunch of speculator who missed the opportunity because they bought YAM in hope of instant double rewards after delegation done but unfortunately things didnt go as they planned and then sold cheap YAM to save their asses.

1 Like

You are so blind or to ignorant to understand why people are so pissed off even though the reward is “so generous” in your view

The promise is ONLY relevant prior to the FUCK UP! After the bank run that happened in the middle of the night, 2am - 4am, depend on where you are in the U.S, people lost significant more than just the delegate due to incompetency and poor communication.

What would the normal person would do if there is potential bug in the code that need votes to fix. They sell the Yam prior to rebase, lock in profit, and wait and see. However, YAM admin was begging for people to VOTE and LEAVE their yam in their wallet to SAVE the project before the vote around 2.am.

To be honest, the fact that you are so much into the weave bout the literacy of the words of the team (before they know they gonna fucked it up) and missing the whole big picture about TRUST, COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING COMMUNITY, it is showing how much this project worth.

And also to be honest, the team isn’t paying out anything … they just print it out of thin air.


Stay strong trente, fighting the good fight. 107k were distributed in rewards for 12 hours. after the 12 hours people could have switched back to the pools.

to Amstel: Also none of this “failure” is accurate, we have a product and we’re voting on launching it, nothing failure about that.

to Galvarino: Delegators as true supporters is misleading as all early adopters took on risk in the extreme and were fairly warned upfront. The project would have had a lot more supporters if it had audited contracts, its not the fault of those who took what turned out to be good advice and stayed on the sidelines, and its not the fault of the founders how the launch went. Those who risked, here we are with the bed we made no one to complain to except ourselves as we agreed to the conditions.

We have a product lets get the rest of the community on board, i.e. the ones who would like to participate but still haven’t gotten the chance.

1 Like

100% agreed. Lets #buidl something

Well done. Shown your true nature. Listening to the community? Nah let’s not do that. As a moderator, you need to step aside. You are clearly biased with your economic interests showing. You show disdain for the largest supporters of this community which you have now fractured it with your belittling tone. This project is dead. Dressing this up as anything beyond pure GREED by the founders and whoever represents this project like yourself is complete crap. This will be renowned as the greatest ponzi scheme of the defi area that kept failing over and over. Hopefully the community will realize to not contribute to these ponzi LP schemes again.


So can someone explain to me who actually lost out finacially, except for those left behind?

if this is the way it’s going to be played then the community will vote with their feet. Taking on extreme risk at the same time for a good cause should be recognized and this is the forum for it. We are now in a position where delegators can be rewarded for their actions and we can now settle the ledger. You talk as though this can’t be changed, this is exactly why we are here to discuss how best agree on the reward distribution for the delegators. I take it you picked up a lot after the mishap ?

1 Like

The issue I have with over compensating reward is that its rewarding high risk behavior, is that a message we want to send? Look at how that turned out, we probably shouldn’t encourage it. Furthermore we agreed to put our tokens in an unaudited smart contract, “total loss is a possibility” we agreed to total loss and should be content with anything more than that.
There are those on the outside who would really like to have taken part, and if too much is portioned out to those on the inside that is not a great welcome to those who merely made arguably wise financial decisions.
There was no pre-mine for the founders in yamv1, as it stands now ‘us’ me and you have effectively premined a majority of the tokens. The proposal is more than fair, it even allocates more to those with less votes and less to those with more votes, which would cover gas fees which is arguably all that should be covered for “testing in prod.”
My intentions are to encourage greater adoption, and to reach those who merely avoided a great risk and who should be considered community members despite the fact they didn’t get to partake. the more tokens that get distributed to those already on the inside the less friendly we are to those who should have been able to participate with their $50. Which are uncountable. The more we delegate to ourselves the wider the gap is between current holders and our community members yet to be met.

Its all relative and I’m sure you’re more interested in making it appear like I did, so you can try and add weight to your argument rather than having that weight in your counter argument or you wouldn’t have brought it up. So, carry on with it.

How the fuck a person can delegate only for sake of their personal profits? There were no statement of a reward or an incentive. It was right before the rebase, every single one of the delegators knew that they will lose ~50% of their money by delegating, even if the situation was like that we delegated to save the YAM. Price went down even more ~80%.

This is not a “significantly more reward”, this is a significant “fuck you” to the delegators who actually contributed and skin in the game.

1 Like

I tried to explain myself with my fucked up english but This explains perfectly how most of the delegators feel.

Now you will ask “if the situation is like this, why don’t they vote on snapshot.page?”
Was it a coincidence that price crashed 22$ to 14$ after YIP-1? Most of the delegators voted this way… You are not worth to be saved again, you upset your real community…

Again i am new. So something happened during the process that meant what? I’m just trying to work out who lost what

I am not greedy, just saying delegators lost more than (3x current reward), even more who live in different timezone.

I’ve said everything i need to say let the people vote. Lets see if those that went into battle get recognized for it. Bitcoin in the early days would be seen as a very high risk behaviour dont you think if we had of all sat on the sidelines like you suggest that probably would have never happened

Then tell me how the fuck u said u lost $15k for saving YAM? You bought more to delegate after the mentioned tweet to rewards the delegators? And you are crying now because the rewards do not cover you lost? What kind of shit are you showing here , just stop the bullshit to save YAM, you are only thinking about yourself.
I am a delegator myself and i admit i delegated right after the tweet since it would cover my gas fee to delegate, and now i am more than happy to accept the offer from the team which is to me the best offer to not only whale but to the small farmer as well, everyone will be benefitted proportionally except the greedy one.
I wont argue more here and would not put more attention to this, because to you even the whole world is not enough for someone as greedy as you. Good luck on the proposal.


some politeness, please. we can disagree on ideas, but we can’t attack each other personally.

let’s keep this discussion constructive :metal:t2:

1 Like